Around the NFL - 2022 edition

[Steve_DeBerg_Fan_420]

1 hour ago, straighthate said:

I hate the argument of top 3 traits. We chose to trade up to 3. We believed someone was worthy of the third pick.  We didn’t have to pick at 3 and we’re stuck between Lance and Mac. It was an active plan to go be in that position.  It’s not something you take a flier on because lance has those traits. You better be right and those traits better translate into a very good player. 
 

I was opposed to making that trade at the time and I stick with that stance now. What would this team have done with two more first round picks on the roster this year? 
 

Just hate the excuse that well they had to make a choice and they went with the boom or bust guy. Then don’t make the frickin trade in the first place if you weren’t all in on someone. 

Fields should have gotten more consideration.  4.3 with arm strength, a good delivery and really good accuracy.  I think they fall in love with the idea of where Lance would end up, rather than where he was at the time.  He's had soo few reps. 

I'm glad we ended up with Purdy over Jones at the moment, and the past is the past.  This team makes up for missed first rounders well, and hopefully this draft will be no exception.  

I like the idea of going for a QB that year, with the four or five guys available.  Looking back, Lance has not been productive, but it is still early in the contract.  There are still two or three years left on the deal.  I think he will have the chance to prove himself.  Maybe not week 1 of this year, but someday.  Until then, he still has a very wide range of outcomes.  

 

Edited February 19, 2023 by Steve_DeBerg_Fan_420

[Forge]

47 minutes ago, Steve_DeBerg_Fan_420 said:

Fields should have gotten more consideration.  4.3 with arm strength, a good delivery and really good accuracy.  I think they fall in love with the idea of where Lance would end up, rather than where he was at the time.  He's had soo few reps. 

I'm glad we ended up with Purdy over Jones at the moment, and the past is the past.  This team makes up for missed first rounders well, and hopefully this draft will be no exception.  

I like the idea of going for a QB that year, with the four or five guys available.  Looking back, Lance has not been productive, but it is still early in the contract.  There are still two or three years left on the deal.  I think he will have the chance to prove himself.  Maybe not week 1 of this year, but someday.  Until then, he still has a very wide range of outcomes.  

 

Eh...the bolded is debatable. He's already down two years. Year three he looks like a backup and you have to pick up the option before year 4. You can't pick up the option at this point (which will be 23-25 million, I believe). His contract is half over, and if Purdy is the starter this year, the contract is 75% of the way complete and he's not a starting qb for the team and will have played a handful of games (barring injury to Purdy) 

[Forge]

5 hours ago, straighthate said:

I hate the argument of top 3 traits. We chose to trade up to 3. We believed someone was worthy of the third pick.  We didn’t have to pick at 3 and we’re stuck between Lance and Mac. It was an active plan to go be in that position.  It’s not something you take a flier on because lance has those traits. You better be right and those traits better translate into a very good player. 
 

I was opposed to making that trade at the time and I stick with that stance now. What would this team have done with two more first round picks on the roster this year? 
 

Just hate the excuse that well they had to make a choice and they went with the boom or bust guy. Then don’t make the frickin trade in the first place if you weren’t all in on someone. 

I never would have made that move for Mac. I don't know that I would  have made it for Lance either. Hell, you can into that draft thread before we made the trade and I'm reasonably sure at one point that I said I thought that Lance would be the QB who falls and that we should consider trading down and picking Lance at like 17 LOL. 

Once we made the move up, I never would have used it to pick Mac. I can't make that kind of move and use it on someone I hope ends up as Derek Carr (and that's not an insult, I think Carr is underrated as a player and I loved him as a prospect) or Kirk Cousins. If that is the type of QB I'm looking to land, I'm taking a quantity approach and I'll just throw darts at the board every year in the 2nd - 7th round and hope to find someone like that. Especially with Shanny's offense. Like this year, I'd keep it going. Draft Aiden O'Connell in the 5th round. It's fine. Once you make the move, I think that you have to gamble on the traits. 

As you said, the truth is that they simply never should have made the trade, most likely. I think that they just grossly misevaluated Lance's skillset and where he actually was at. I wouldn't have minded Mac at 12 (though I probably wouldn't have taken him in my "are you smarter than.." as that probably would have been Slater) 

[Steve_DeBerg_Fan_420]

6 minutes ago, Forge said:

Eh...the bolded is debatable. He's already down two years. Year three he looks like a backup and you have to pick up the option before year 4. You can't pick up the option at this point (which will be 23-25 million, I believe). His contract is half over, and if Purdy is the starter this year, the contract is 75% of the way complete. 

I"m up for that debate!

 

He was seen as a developmental guy, so each year of the contract bears more weight than the prior year.   You could even argue his first year with JG on the roster was a red shirt year.  So that would even affect the weighted contract percentage more.

Regarding the bolded the current date is 2/19/2023, and the 2023 football season hasn't happened yet.  Hop outta that time machine and enjoy having a conversation at this space time intersection with the rest of us.  

 

 

[Forge]

11 minutes ago, Steve_DeBerg_Fan_420 said:

I"m up for that debate!

 

He was seen as a developmental guy, so each year of the contract bears more weight than the prior year.   You could even argue his first year with JG on the roster was a red shirt year.  So that would even affect the weighted contract percentage more.

Regarding the bolded the current date is 2/19/2023, and the 2023 football season hasn't happened yet.  Hop outta that time machine and enjoy having a conversation at this space time intersection with the rest of us.  

 

 

In the current space / time, 2/19/23,  it is my belief that Purdy is the starter. New information will be re-evaluated once received (such as the surgery Purdy gets, his recovery, etc), but right now in this moment I think Purdy is the starter as I expect him to be ready to go by the start of the season. 

Also, a rookie contract is 4 years with a 5th year option for first round picks. "Weighting" doesn't really matter...it's a fixed contract. It's currently half over on the base, 40% over on the option. After this season it will be 60/75%

[Steve_DeBerg_Fan_420]

23 minutes ago, Forge said:

In the current space / time, 2/19/23,  it is my belief that Purdy is the starter. New information will be re-evaluated once received (such as the surgery Purdy gets, his recovery, etc), but right now in this moment I think Purdy is the starter as I expect him to be ready to go by the start of the season. 

Also, a rookie contract is 4 years with a 5th year option for first round picks. "Weighting" doesn't really matter...it's a fixed contract. It's currently half over on the base, 40% over on the option. After this season it will be 60/75%

So you can skip ahead in time in time a whole year and assume 17 consecutive games worth of outcomes, but if I weight each year as being more important than the last based on development it is considered meaningless or irrelevant.  

We don't have any information on Lance, so it is expected to have gaps in the information.  Filling in the gaps with positive or negative outcomes is unfair based on what has actually taken place.  

His rookie year is a wash, and the injury his second year after only like five quarters was unfortunate.  

 

 

 

[Forge]

2 hours ago, Steve_DeBerg_Fan_420 said:

So you can skip ahead in time in time a whole year and assume 17 consecutive games worth of outcomes, but if I weight each year as being more important than the last based on development it is considered meaningless or irrelevant.  

We don't have any information on Lance, so it is expected to have gaps in the information.  Filling in the gaps with positive or negative outcomes is unfair based on what has actually taken place.  

His rookie year is a wash, and the injury his second year after only like five quarters was unfortunate.  

 

 

 

You said he was early in his contract...I'm saying his contract is half over, so I'm not sure how  it's "early". Decisions have to be made soon, unfortunately. The weighing of his experience matters from his evaluation standpoint, that's fine...I have no problem with that, but his contract didn't wait for him. I was talking about the actual contract, not his evaluation. This reads far more semantical in nature than I intended it to be (ostensibly arguing about the use of the word "early" in regards to his contract) when I first posted it. It's fine to say we don't know anything about him - I say that all the time when people say he sucks based on what he has shown lol. 

But if we are being real, he's already at a make or break spot of his contract and I just don't think that's "early". There's a very real chance that he isn't the starter this year. 

 

[DTMW78]

3 hours ago, Steve_DeBerg_Fan_420 said:

Fields should have gotten more consideration.  4.3 with arm strength, a good delivery and really good accuracy.  I think they fall in love with the idea of where Lance would end up, rather than where he was at the time.  He's had soo few reps. 

I'm glad we ended up with Purdy over Jones at the moment, and the past is the past.  This team makes up for missed first rounders well, and hopefully this draft will be no exception.  

I like the idea of going for a QB that year, with the four or five guys available.  Looking back, Lance has not been productive, but it is still early in the contract.  There are still two or three years left on the deal.  I think he will have the chance to prove himself.  Maybe not week 1 of this year, but someday.  Until then, he still has a very wide range of outcomes.  

 

Only 2 possible outcomes for Lance imo.

1 , Purdy's injury keeps him out and give Trey a chance to show he has what it takes to run this offense.

2, Purdy's good to go and Lance is the backup.

[757-NINER]

3 hours ago, Forge said:

I never would have made that move for Mac. I don't know that I would not have made it for Lance either. Hell, you can into that draft thread before we made the trade and I'm reasonably sure at one point that I said I thought that Lance would be the QB who falls and that we should consider trading down and picking Lance at like 17 LOL. 

Once we made the move up, I never would have used it to pick Mac. I can't make that kind of move and use it on someone I hope ends up as Derek Carr (and that's not an insult, I think Carr is underrated as a player and I loved him as a prospect) or Kirk Cousins. If that is the type of QB I'm looking to land, I'm taking a quantity approach and I'll just throw darts at the board every year in the 2nd - 7th round and hope to find someone like that. Especially with Shanny's offense. Like this year, I'd keep it going. Draft Aiden O'Connell in the 5th round. It's fine. Once you make the move, I think that you have to gamble on the traits. 

As you said, the truth is that they simply never should have made the trade, most likely. I think that they just grossly misevaluated Lance's skillset and where he actually was at. I wouldn't have minded Mac at 12 (though I probably wouldn't have taken him in my "are you smarter than.." as that probably would have been Slater) 

This, this and THIS!

You have to swing for the fences right there. There's no debating.

The Mac's and Purdy's of the draft will still be there later. 

Hell, I would have took Trask in the second personally over drafting Mac in the first.

They were clearly looking for more "juice" at the position.

A 5-Tool prospect, if you will.

Got the eval wrong it seems but I can't judge them for aiming for the stars.

And for the record, I really wanted Fields.

I understand his pocket presence/awareness/anticipation was a huge concern for some.

But no more than Lance's accuracy/touch.

Give me the naturally accurate ball thrower every time...we can work out the rest.

[Justone2]

Honestly that whole class so far hasn't really been as good as promised. Lawrence was promised as the next golden boy and while he has taken a step forward he at best was bottom top 10. Wilson has been a massive dissapointment. Lance hasn't really have done much of anything. Fields has shown to be a good runner but his actual passing has been way below average and Mac Jones basically has been what most people projected. 

 

For me even back then i was 100% for staying or ideally trading down and taking Jones because i thought Fields wasn't a great fit for our offense and Lance was too raw which two years in is probably still the best you can say about him. With Fields it was all medium and mostly deep stuff which looked great but the one time a defense did some disguised coverages(i think it was Indiana) he had a terrible game. And his short game was absolute awful in terms of timing and and anticipation.

[Forge]

6 minutes ago, Justone2 said:

With Fields it was all medium and mostly deep stuff which looked great but the one time a defense did some disguised coverages(i think it was Indiana) he had a terrible game. And his short game was absolute awful in terms of timing and and anticipation.

Jamar Johnson coming out party, I believe. 

[Justone2]

10 minutes ago, Forge said:

Jamar Johnson coming out party, I believe. 

Yeah honestly suprised with how little Johnson has done in the NFL. Thought he would be a good safety but instead he got cut after one year and nobody picked him up.

[757-NINER]

25 minutes ago, Justone2 said:

Honestly that whole class so far hasn't really been as good as promised. Lawrence was promised as the next golden boy and while he has taken a step forward he at best was bottom top 10. Wilson has been a massive dissapointment. Lance hasn't really have done much of anything. Fields has shown to be a good runner but his actual passing has been way below average and Mac Jones basically has been what most people projected. 

 

For me even back then i was 100% for staying or ideally trading down and taking Jones because i thought Fields wasn't a great fit for our offense and Lance was too raw which two years in is probably still the best you can say about him. With Fields it was all medium and mostly deep stuff which looked great but the one time a defense did some disguised coverages(i think it was Indiana) he had a terrible game. And his short game was absolute awful in terms of timing and and anticipation.

I will say this, and it's all conjecture at this point but I think Fields looks better under Shanny.

The point-and-click stuff I think he would be great at.

The processing and understanding defenses would still be baby steps but it is that way with Lance tbh.

But I don't think Fields looks as unsure/lack of confidence from the pocket under Shanny. 

Shanny would maximize his strengths while still masking alot of his deficiencies.

AND the threat of him as a runner, to get otuside the tackles with sheer speed, would open up a ton of off-schedule magic.

Just my 2 cents...

Edited February 19, 2023 by 757-NINER

[Justone2]

1 minute ago, 757-NINER said:

I will say this, and it's all conjecture at this point but I think Fields looks better under Shanny.

The point-and-click stuff I think he would be great at.

The processing and understanding defenses would still be baby steps but it is that way with Lance tbh.

But I don't think Fields looks as unsure/lack of confidence from the pocket under Shanny. 

Shanny would maximize his strengths while still masking alot of his deficiencies.

Just my 2 cents...

Yeah this is kinda the same discussion that was in this forum back then. I think it would highlight it just like how Wilson never really looked great with the Jets. I am not saying Shanny wouldn't help because having one of the best offensive minds in your corner will always be helpful but also i don't think he reaches Jimmy G/Brock Purdy type efficiency and while his running and better deep passing would add something the lack of executing the play thats drawn up in time would not make the offense tick as it should in my eyes. 

[Steve_DeBerg_Fan_420]

3 hours ago, DTMW78 said:

Only 2 possible outcomes for Lance imo.

1 , Purdy's injury keeps him out and give Trey a chance to show he has what it takes to run this offense.

2, Purdy's good to go and Lance is the backup.

Those are circumstances.  I was thinking more in terms of the question of how good can trey lance be?  It is possible he really sucks, but it is also possible he is really really good.  We just don't know yet.  

Also, there is a set of circumstances that is more likely to occur based on past as a predictor than both of those put together. 

 

3- Purdy comes back healthy, plays well, and suffers a different injury later on down the line.