2023 NFL Draft Talk

[ET80]

1 minute ago, Dr A W Niloc said:

Because, this being Penn State, the person making that decision wouldn't recognize a QB if he was can-jammed with Joe Montana.

He'd have done better with Stephanie Clifford.

It’s never that simple. We see what happens on Saturday, we get stats and analytics on what happens on Saturday, but these decisions are made based on what happens on Monday through Friday, they happen in the offseason, in Spring Games. There are a few complaints about Levis and his football IQ/maturity, and that sort of manifests itself when a guy like Clifford is even in a competition.

Something tells me that Levis doesn’t get the mental part of the game, which is why he’s actually falling down boards - teams are talking to him, getting him on the white board, watching film and having him break things down (which is commonplace during this time of year) and Levis is failing - and subsequently falling.

[Dr A W Niloc]

26 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Something tells me that Levis doesn’t get...

...top 12 coaching, decent blocking, or great receiving.

     He's the fourth best college passer in a bumper crop.  He needs to learn to step into his throws but that will have to wait until there is no one in his grill.  He needs to add loft to his long passes but that can wait until he has WRs open deep.  He needs to make secondary reads but that will have to wait until he has a secondary receiver (or, at least, a primary one).

     Like Stroud, most rookie QBs are destined to disappoint at the pro level.  There are a few, such as Levis and Hooker, who rate to do better.  It happens (as does Haley's comet).

Quote

"Kentucky light shine, stranger in the sky."

 

    

    

[ET80]

22 minutes ago, Dr A W Niloc said:

1 hour ago, ET80 said:

Something tells me that Levis doesn’t get...

...top 12 coaching, decent blocking, or great receiving.

If that’s a prerequisite to a prospect becoming a competent QB, perhaps becoming a competent QB wasn’t going to happen. 

When life hands you lemons, you make lemonade - not lose your opportunity to a future VP of Product Strategy and have to resort to the transfer portal. This isn’t Hooker who actually WON the starting gig at Va Tech and transferred out due to coaching changes - Levis committed to this staff, got into a comp he should have won, but didn’t. Why? It can’t be waved off as inconsistent coaching and teammates, because Penn State was (and is) a competitive school with or without Levis.

(Hell, Penn State was 11-2, 7th ranked team in the nation, with a Rose Bowl W vs 10th ranked Utah - it DEFINITELY wasn’t the coaching or surrounding cast, this was a damn good college team).

22 minutes ago, Dr A W Niloc said:

Like Stroud, most rookie QBs are destined to disappoint at the pro level.  There are a few, such as Levis and Hooker, who rate to do better.  It happens (as does Haley's comet).

Likewise, guys who didn’t have [insert asset here] or didn’t get [insert circumstance here] tend to fail more than pass - that’s about as consistent as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. Guys like Jake Locker and Christian Hackenberg weren’t just bad because of bad coaching and poor supporting cast, they were bad… because they were not good at football. 

Occam’s Razor applies here: you don’t need to add in assumptions such as supporting cast, coaching to justify why someone isn’t good. Sometimes, they’re not good because they’re not good (which is why other players - such as Sean Clifford - could be a four year starter and successful college QB with that same coaching and supporting cast that was so bad for Levis).

[Pastor Dillon]

I feel like its just all smoke screen. Stroud will go 1 and we will take Young and i will be the only guy upset.

On a side note, I have a Brycen Young on my track team. Dude went in with the highest seed in several events at our conference track meet and totally wet the bed....so there's my proof. 

[Dr A W Niloc]

12 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Occam’s Razor applies here: you don’t need to add in assumptions such as supporting cast, coaching to justify why someone isn’t good. Sometimes, they’re not good because they’re not good (which is why other players - such as Sean Clifford - could be a four year starter and successful college QB with that same coaching and supporting cast that was so bad for Levis).

Independent evaluations of players and coaches based on observation and data are conclusions, not assumptions.  A posteriori vs a priori.

     Here we agree:

Quote

Sometimes, they’re not good because they’re not good

     Unlike 18th ranked Sean Clifford, Levis [may or may not be great but he] is  good.  That's why we're talking about him.

     Any comparison between Levis (or Hooker) and others that doesn't mention the monumental chasm between their environments ignores the elephant in the room.  We might as well be comparing two runners with similar 40 times, one of whom is carrying a piano on his back.

     This isn't about Occam's Razor.  It's about one of Pearl's Paradoxes: 

Quote

"The point of some comparisons is that there is no comparison."

     Sort of like "apples to oranges" but more ontological.

[ET80]

1 hour ago, Dr A W Niloc said:

Independent evaluations of players and coaches based on observation and data are conclusions, not assumptions.

I disagree - because if it was conclusive, there would be no draft busts. 

1 hour ago, Dr A W Niloc said:

Unlike 18th ranked Sean Clifford, Levis [may or may not be great but he] is  good.

Once again - disagree. There is no metric that would indicate Levis is good, whether it’s bulk stats or advanced analytics. Will Levis is talked about because his physical profile is similar to Josh Allen, and people are correlating a similar maturation - which is akin to hitting the lottery twice (while playing the exact same numbers). 

1 hour ago, Dr A W Niloc said:

Any comparison between Levis (or Hooker) and others that doesn't mention the monumental chasm between their environments ignores the elephant in the room.

I think you’re misinterpreting my stance - once upon a time, the environment Will Levis was in was the same environment Sean Clifford was in. They were both at Penn State, they were both competing on (and off) the field for QB1 - and Clifford won. Levis was the backup. There is no room for misinterpretation there - they were literally on the same playing field, with the same supporting cast and same coaching, and Clifford outperformed Levis for the opportunity to be the starting QB.

Once again, I ask: Why? You can’t just dismiss this as a poor coaching decision (especially when you consider Penn State was a top program in part to this decision) there was something in that competition that propelled Clifford over Levis. It wasn’t physical attributes, so what was it and how do I know it won’t happen again?

[ET80]

The Trey Lance to Houston talk is bubbling up again. I have to say - Anderson at 2, JSN at 12, Brian Branch at 33, Lance with pick 65 (plus something else) and Wypler at 73 would actually appease me very well.

Lance is a relative unknown in terms of potential, but Bobby Slowik has inside knowledge on his progression and overall work ethic - the former 49ers passing game coordinator had to work closely with Lance to prep him for the starters’ gig, so it was full on prep between the end of last season and the start of this season. Slowik might be the one of the few guys qualified to say whether or not Lance is capable of being a high end QB. And if by some reason it doesn’t work out with Lance? You can move off of him and into that 2024 QB class with little commitment. You don’t have to pick up his 5th year option if he doesn’t live up to expectations, you’re out by the time you figure out whether a typical 3rd round pick is worth keeping.

I mean… as an organization, if you really feel uneasy about CJ Stroud and don’t want to wait a few years to prove that Will Levis is another Christian Hackenberg… this is probably the best possible compromise, a shot as a high level QB with a ripcord you can yank if he’s not a high level QB.

I’d still prefer Stroud - but I’ll take this over Richardson or Levis.

[Pastor Dillon]

11 hours ago, ET80 said:

The Trey Lance to Houston talk is bubbling up again. I have to say - Anderson at 2, JSN at 12, Brian Branch at 33, Lance with pick 65 (plus something else) and Wypler at 73 would actually appease me very well.

Lance is a relative unknown in terms of potential, but Bobby Slowik has inside knowledge on his progression and overall work ethic - the former 49ers passing game coordinator had to work closely with Lance to prep him for the starters’ gig, so it was full on prep between the end of last season and the start of this season. Slowik might be the one of the few guys qualified to say whether or not Lance is capable of being a high end QB. And if by some reason it doesn’t work out with Lance? You can move off of him and into that 2024 QB class with little commitment. You don’t have to pick up his 5th year option if he doesn’t live up to expectations, you’re out by the time you figure out whether a typical 3rd round pick is worth keeping.

I mean… as an organization, if you really feel uneasy about CJ Stroud and don’t want to wait a few years to prove that Will Levis is another Christian Hackenberg… this is probably the best possible compromise, a shot as a high level QB with a ripcord you can yank if he’s not a high level QB.

I’d still prefer Stroud - but I’ll take this over Richardson or Levis.

I’d do this in a heartbeat but I really don’t think the 49ers let him go for a 3rd. In fact they would be stupid too. If Purdy was healthy then they might trade him for a 2nd but I’m gonna say it would cost us either 33 plus or pick 12 

[lumberjackchris]

One. Week.

[ET80]

14 minutes ago, Pastor Dillon said:

I’d do this in a heartbeat but I really don’t think the 49ers let him go for a 3rd. In fact they would be stupid too. If Purdy was healthy then they might trade him for a 2nd but I’m gonna say it would cost us either 33 plus or pick 12 

The word on the street is this…

So - I say 3.65 + a conditional 2024 pick:

- If Lance leads the Texans to the AFCCG, San Francisco gets the higher of the Texans 2024 first round picks.

- If Lance makes the playoffs and hits significant benchmarks/award consideration, San Francisco gets the lower of the Texans 2024 first round picks.

- If Lance starts all 17 games (or starts meaningful games, not sitting due to rest) but doesn’t hit the benchmarks above, San Francisco gets the Texans 2024 2nd round pick.

- If Lance missed 1-3 games due to verified injury, San Francisco gets the Texans 2024 3rd round pick.

- If Lance misses more than five games, San Francisco gets no 2024 picks.

This covers a lot of variables and really insulates both sides. It’s very fair, IMO.

@Forge @adamq @TecmoSuperJoe @N4L - thoughts?

[ET80]

5 minutes ago, lumberjackchris said:

One. Week.

I honestly need this to be over with. I forgot what it’s like to be this conflicted in a choice.

It wasn’t this bad last season… 

[lumberjackchris]

3 minutes ago, ET80 said:

I honestly need this to be over with. I forgot what it’s like to be this conflicted in a choice.

It wasn’t this bad last season… 

Same. It’s been brutal. I’m just glad I’ve been so busy with track season wrapping up 

[lumberjackchris]

👀

[ET80]

1 hour ago, lumberjackchris said:

👀

Brady Quinn laid into Billy Spikes for this tweet:

FYI - Dov Kleiman is a former Footballsfuture.com member (Billy Spikes - he and I had a love/hate relationship in that he loved me… and I hated him. He was hyper active in NFL News, one of the subs I moderate).

He “aggregates” reports from credible sources but leaves out critical pieces of that report, as Quinn calls out here. This isn’t the first time he’s been disingenuous about reporting, and I would imagine it’s not the last time he’ll be disingenuous about reporting.

[Forge]

1 hour ago, ET80 said:

The word on the street is this…

So - I say 3.65 + a conditional 2024 pick:

- If Lance leads the Texans to the AFCCG, San Francisco gets the higher of the Texans 2024 first round picks.

- If Lance makes the playoffs and hits significant benchmarks/award consideration, San Francisco gets the lower of the Texans 2024 first round picks.

- If Lance starts all 17 games (or starts meaningful games, not sitting due to rest) but doesn’t hit the benchmarks above, San Francisco gets the Texans 2024 2nd round pick.

- If Lance missed 1-3 games due to verified injury, San Francisco gets the Texans 2024 3rd round pick.

- If Lance misses more than five games, San Francisco gets no 2024 picks.

This covers a lot of variables and really insulates both sides. It’s very fair, IMO.

@Forge @adamq @TecmoSuperJoe @N4L - thoughts?

I wouldn't do it. 

Jlc is jlc. It's more likely they they just don't move him because nobody gives what they want.  Have to click on the tweet to get the rest, but GM thinks it would take a strong offer to get Lance 

I don't know why the niners would be involved to trade him just to trade him. Weirder things have happened, but doesn't make much sense for them