Trevor Lawrence and the Jags - Year 4 (T-Law is what he is)

[Soggust]

Just now, KhanYouDigIt said:

While ahead of Herbert and Lamar. Ty sir.

Even though I know I'm an annoying hater who has to disagree with almost everything you Jags fans say -

It's all still love ❤️

I hope Trevor proves me wrong, because he's so freaking likable and he seems like a great person (not at Chiefs expense).

I'm neutral on Lamar, but I'm certainly happy to join in on Herbert bashing too

[Duluther]

How would the Jags' all-time QBs be listed so far (not including TLaw's future)? Alphabetically:

Blake Bortles

Mark Brunell

David Garrard

Byron Leftwich

Trevor Lawrence

Edited February 19 by Duluther

[KhanYouDigIt]

14 minutes ago, Soggust said:

Even though I know I'm an annoying hater who has to disagree with almost everything you Jags fans say -

It's all still love ❤️

I hope Trevor proves me wrong, because he's so freaking likable and he seems like a great person (not at Chiefs expense).

I'm neutral on Lamar, but I'm certainly happy to join in on Herbert bashing too

He definitely isn’t generational, that’s for sure. I do think he’s still a top 10-12 QB. 
 

People are probably sour on him right now after the way the season ended and I get it. He wasn’t good after he came from getting hurt in that Bengals game and we didn’t win another game that he started.

Just hoping they upgrade the interior OL, which would help the run game, which would help Trevor. We had no resemblance of a run game after week 5? ETN only averaged more than 4 YPC twice in the last 12 games. JPJ needs to be in serious consideration at 17.

 

Edited February 19 by KhanYouDigIt

[SodeeWater_Cheezburger]

3 hours ago, roger murdock said:

Wait what? CJ Strouds rookie season dookie's all over Trevor Lawrence's one good year

Higher TD%, half the INT%, over 1 yard/attempt more, better record while taking over for a bottom feeding team. 

I wouldnt trade Stroud for T-Law if I were getting 3 FRPs in return as well. 

 

Regarding Love, Herbert, and Trevor Lawrence, if you rank their 8 combined seasons as starters 1-8 you clearly have Lawrence with the two worst seasons, and Herbert with the two best seasons. After that you can fit the other 4 seasons in basically any order as a sandwich in betweeen. I certainly wouldnt say Lawrence is better than either, in fact I think hes the worst of the three. 

 

 

If the Jags were willing to offer the Bears Trevor Lawrence and 3 (or even 1) FRPs for the #1 overall pick this year, I'd rip their arm off as I shook their hand accepting the deal!

I do like CJ Stroud a lot.  He had a great rookie year, and he seems like a terrific person, but to say you wouldn't take Lawrence and 3 FRPs for him seems a little extreme.

[DigInBoys]

If we swap Lawrence with Burrow on their respective teams these last few years is Burrow really that much better?

[sparky151]

17 hours ago, DigInBoys said:

If we swap Lawrence with Burrow on their respective teams these last few years is Burrow really that much better?

Yes. Burrow sees the field much better than Lawrence. 

[roger murdock]

23 hours ago, SodeeWater_Cheezburger said:

If the Jags were willing to offer the Bears Trevor Lawrence and 3 (or even 1) FRPs for the #1 overall pick this year, I'd rip their arm off as I shook their hand accepting the deal!

I do like CJ Stroud a lot.  He had a great rookie year, and he seems like a terrific person, but to say you wouldn't take Lawrence and 3 FRPs for him seems a little extreme.

CJ Stroud is worth considerably more than the first overall pick though. He’s the dream you hope the first overall pick turns into. But it could only be a Trevor Lawrence type 

[SodeeWater_Cheezburger]

4 minutes ago, roger murdock said:

CJ Stroud is worth considerably more than the first overall pick though. He’s the dream you hope the first overall pick turns into. But it could only be a Trevor Lawrence type 

I agree.  So far, he has done great.  I think you are underrating Lawrence, but I guess we will have to agree to disagree.  No biggie.

[Tugboat]

On 2/17/2024 at 3:40 PM, Soggust said:

I already said that's only if he has a bad year next year, which you also agreed would have you concerned.

 

Yes it is. I literally included his rushing TDs (totTD).

 

The fumbles are important though. He has 33 fumbles lost since 21, second only to Fields. Presenting Lawrence as not having a fumbling issue is very disingenuous imo.

 

I actually 100% agree with all of this. Trevor is good at moving the ball. Its one of the things to really like about him. His problem is scoring touchdowns and turning the ball over, fumbles specifically. The problem comparing Lawrence to an Allen, per se, is that Allen IS demonstrably winning those games by winning more than TL and producing a lot of TDs. Trevor still hasn't scored over 30 TDs in a season and 25 is his best passing year. 

 

One clarification - I don't think I project like you are suggesting. I'm saying what he's been to date. He could be top 5 next year, and I've said so on multiple occasions. I think anyone could, frankly. And if Trevor does, I'll move him up and give him credit for a top 5 year. All I'm saying is, to date, he's been below average and if we look at the cumulative body of work, it leaves a lot to be desired, especially, when you think about how much to pay him going forward.

You're looking at "Top X year" as an indictment on his talent, but it's an indictment on his production. There are tons of valid reasons, like you stated as to why, but that doesn't change what his body of work is to date. And I'm fine applying context but you're not doing that for every other QB, so it doesn't make sense in comparisons and I can only objectively excuse so many games when looking at the future.

We are, quite literally, making justifications for over half the guys' career at this point, 3 years in. But even still, he could be great next year, sure.

 

I think every word of this can be true and he could still end up not being the guy or even a top QB, due to situation, injury, coaching, support, whatever.

 

I think you're taking it as "cut him, he's trash" when really it's more of "what happens if he tears an ACL week 2 next year" and "what if he has another ~25totTD : 14 Turnover kinds of years next year?". 

Your takes comes off that that's an unreasonable outcome, but it seems very likely given the previous years. And whether that's due to coaching, support, injuries whatever - I'm not sure why I'm confident to expect the Jags to have resolved all of those and set him up perfectly to succeed next year, given they haven't to date.

 

As was pointed out, it's not really that Lawrence is fumbling at a particularly, abnormally high rate per se.  It's more of a problem that when he does fumble, they tend to be "lost" at an abnormally high rate.  Room for improvement?  Absolutely.  But watching him...it's just not nearly the sort of waving red flag you're making it out to be based on the statistical scouting.  Just getting some better help and an OLine that isn't in constant flux with guys who probably shouldn't even be playing, would go a long ways toward rectifying some of this.

I don't expect it to be compelling if you haven't really watched Lawrence a ton over that span, but the reality is...the stats don't tell the full story here.  And for the people who have watched him extensively, it's simply not as big of a concern as you're making it out to be.  He's not nearly as careless with the football as the numbers might appear at a casual glance.

 

 

As far as the other part goes...yes, the reality of the NFL is that a "bad year" or "major injury" can radically shift future projections/trajectory.  That's true of most players, and especially QBs though.  Having a guy shred their ACL week 2 next year is going to have a seriously detrimental impact on the projection of almost any QB.  There are only a handful where that wouldn't massively shift the outlook on them going forward.

If he has a terrible season that doesn't look like a step forward, then sure...we can start to talk about him the way you are.  But i'm acting like that's unlikely because i firmly believe that it is unlikely.  Prior to the injuries, he was pacing for something much more like a 25TD - 8INT season like the year prior.  Which he was doing with a pretty bad OLine, totally impotent running game, and a very underwhelming receiving corps.  If they go out and actually make strides to improve some of that supporting cast and he still looks like he's stagnated or worse, then sure...i'll start worrying a bit.  But that's a whole bunch of "what if" hypotheticals stacked on top of one another, where the actual product he's delivered has shown plenty of encouraging signs that he's still growing and trending upward as a QB, with Top-10ish results when he's healthy...and that arrow still pointing up to potentially be a lot more than that if he takes those next steps and hones his consistency, gets better fitting supporting cast, etc.

 

On 2/18/2024 at 11:26 AM, sparky151 said:

My argument is that nobody in Indianapolis would trade Richardson for Lawrence straight up. It was only 4 games but AR showed that his tools translated to the NFL. Likewise with Browning, though Cincinnati would no doubt trade him for a decent return if offered. When Burrow got hurt, Browning was thrown into action and overall did pretty well. I assume you'd agree he was better than Bagent or DeVito or O'Connell or Stidham? Browning actually had a better passer rating than Burrow, Mahomes, Allen, and dare I say it...Lawrence. 

You keep making excuses for Trevor and blaming his team mates, but to ask Billy Beane's question about a baseball player, "if he's so good, why doesn't he play good"? You say you'd refuse the top pick in this draft if offered for Lawrence. The flip side of that is if Jacksonville offered Lawrence for pick 1, the Bears would quickly decline. Maybe Lawrence improves and breaks out above the David Carr or Geno Smith level he's at currently. But also maybe he peaked in 2022. 

Stroud has already established a higher level of play in his 1 season than Lawrence has reached in any of his 3 years. It seems obvious that Stroud is more likely to be a top 5 QB than Lawrence. 

 

 

 

It feels like you're still mostly just undermining whatever your own argument is here.  Tiny sample sizes are wildly difficult to project with any actual accuracy.  

 

Like, yes...Browning had a great QBR replacing Burrow or whatever...but would you genuinely suggest that he's a better QB than Burrow as a result?  Should the Bengals just move Burrow and ride with Browning because he had a small sample of "better play"?

 

 

As to the Billy Beane quote...i'm telling you, Trevor Lawrence has "played good".  As we've seen with moneyball in general...sometimes the numbers really do not tell the whole story.  They can be misleading and skewed by all number of outside factors.  If you aren't controlling for those things, you're going to get a blurred context-less picture of what those numbers actually mean.  Even serious analytics have recognized this and branched out to all manner of experimental methods of compensating or adjusting for context and situation.

[Soggust]

40 minutes ago, Tugboat said:

 

As was pointed out, it's not really that Lawrence is fumbling at a particularly, abnormally high rate per se.  It's more of a problem that when he does fumble, they tend to be "lost" at an abnormally high rate.  Room for improvement?  Absolutely.  But watching him...it's just not nearly the sort of waving red flag you're making it out to be based on the statistical scouting.  Just getting some better help and an OLine that isn't in constant flux with guys who probably shouldn't even be playing, would go a long ways toward rectifying some of this.

2nd in fumbles since he's been in the league. Not just lost (although 2nd in that too), but all fumbles.

It's not just a luck thing. 

 

42 minutes ago, Tugboat said:

I don't expect it to be compelling if you haven't really watched Lawrence a ton over that span, but the reality is...the stats don't tell the full story here.  And for the people who have watched him extensively, it's simply not as big of a concern as you're making it out to be.  He's not nearly as careless with the football as the numbers might appear at a casual glance.

He is though.

It's just hard to gauge without bias if you haven't really seen how the rest of the QBs in the league are playing.

 

42 minutes ago, Tugboat said:

As far as the other part goes...yes, the reality of the NFL is that a "bad year" or "major injury" can radically shift future projections/trajectory.  That's true of most players, and especially QBs though.  Having a guy shred their ACL week 2 next year is going to have a seriously detrimental impact on the projection of almost any QB.  There are only a handful where that wouldn't massively shift the outlook on them going forward.

Sure, but there's a difference between "he had a bad year" like Dak last year and "Let's ignore 2/3 to 3/4 of a guys career".

At a certain point, you are what your stats say you are imo.

 

44 minutes ago, Tugboat said:

If he has a terrible season that doesn't look like a step forward, then sure...we can start to talk about him the way you are.  But i'm acting like that's unlikely because i firmly believe that it is unlikely.  Prior to the injuries, he was pacing for something much more like a 25TD - 8INT season like the year prior.  Which he was doing with a pretty bad OLine, totally impotent running game, and a very underwhelming receiving corps.  If they go out and actually make strides to improve some of that supporting cast and he still looks like he's stagnated or worse, then sure...i'll start worrying a bit.  

25:8 isn't really that impressive, especially when you have 9 fumbles lost (4 more than #2).

That's my biggest problem. Even his "good" season to date is meh. 

Then, we took a step back from that.

 

44 minutes ago, Tugboat said:

But that's a whole bunch of "what if" hypotheticals stacked on top of one another, where the actual product he's delivered has shown plenty of encouraging signs that he's still growing and trending upward as a QB, with Top-10ish results when he's healthy...and that arrow still pointing up to potentially be a lot more than that if he takes those next steps and hones his consistency, gets better fitting supporting cast, etc.

But he's not "trending upward". He's quite literally "trending downward" at this point.

If the argument is that QB progression isn't always linear, sure I agree, but again we are now stretching reality to pretend like this year was better than last year for TL, even before injury. 

[Tugboat]

1 minute ago, Soggust said:

2nd in fumbles since he's been in the league. Not just lost (although 2nd in that too), but all fumbles.

It's not just a luck thing. 

QB Fumbles in general are an inherently "luck" thing.  You see wild fluctuations year to year even from the best QBs.  Where they might have double the number of fumbles one year compared to the next.  And again, as was illustrated in this thread...Lawrence "lost" an absolutely unlucky or disproportionate number of the balls he put on the ground.

Heck, the "all time leaders" in that category includes guys like Favre, Brady, Elway, Eli Manning, Warren Moon, Bledsoe, Roethlisberger, Marino, Fouts, Russ, Boomer, AARon is up there too.  Good QBs lose the ball sometimes, it happens.

That one bizarre instance of a concussed Lawrence just forgetting to hold onto the football aside, he really isn't overtly careless with his carriage of the ball.

 

Moreover, even if it were a particularly valid method of judging a QB's "quality"...how many balls did say, Tua put on the ground this last year?  Dak put the ball on the ground a ton a few years ago and then completely cut that number down as he progressed in his career.  The reigning new MVP Lamar Jackson put the ball down near as makes no difference, as many times as Lawrence.  Josh Allen dropped the ball a ton the year before this one.  It just happens.  There's a huge range of variance in that with is extremely situation/context sensitive and can make wild swings to a 2X magnitude +/- with relative frequency year over year.

 

1 minute ago, Soggust said:

 

He is though.

It's just hard to gauge without bias if you haven't really seen how the rest of the QBs in the league are playing.

 

I mean, in the one context re: Fields you're arguing, "how am i supposed to argue with what eyes are telling me"...and in another, you're saying it's just bias because i'm not really "seeing" how the rest of the QBs in the league are playing?

I watch plenty of non-Jaguars football to get very reasonable gauge on what else is going on around the league.  And again, i'm telling you that if you actually watch Lawrence, you'll understand why the statistics that you're leaning so hard on, are not telling an accurate story.  There's a fundamental reason for this weird disconnect between outside people who think Lawrence isn't very good, and the people who have to live with the guy as their QB...who almost universally still strongly believe in him as "The Guy" and the best, most talented QB the franchise has ever seen.

 

 

1 minute ago, Soggust said:

 

Sure, but there's a difference between "he had a bad year" like Dak last year and "Let's ignore 2/3 to 3/4 of a guys career".

At a certain point, you are what your stats say you are imo.

 

Dak is really a great example of the exact opposite of what you're suggesting though.  His stats have been...absolutely all over the place.  The stats can lie.  They're often super situationally dependent and subject to large degrees of "luck" year to year.  That's why actually watching the players and forming those opinions is important to a more wholistic evaluation.  The numbers are just one part of the whole picture.  Dak is still the same QB regardless of whether he's coming off a year where he protected the football, or turned it over a hundred billionty times.  It's the situation and context that generates most of the variance there.

 

1 minute ago, Soggust said:

 

25:8 isn't really that impressive, especially when you have 9 fumbles lost (4 more than #2).

That's my biggest problem. Even his "good" season to date is meh. 

Then, we took a step back from that.

 

But he's not "trending upward". He's quite literally "trending downward" at this point.

If the argument is that QB progression isn't always linear, sure I agree, but again we are now stretching reality to pretend like this year was better than last year for TL, even before injury. 

 

Again though, i don't think he really "took a step back" from that at all.  Prior to his injuries, he was pacing for very similar numbers statistically, and actually moving in a positive direction overall.  And that's not even talking about actually watching the team and how he got to those numbers.  Where the receiver corps was basically built to hit "homeruns" and occasionally did, but offered so much frustration watching them on any given snap where most of them did absolutely nothing to help.  Where the running game was a complete joke (as already mentioned with guys who are not ETN combining for like 240 total yards all year), and more often than not none of the receivers were even remotely open.  They'd get open by miles every now and then and Lawrence was pretty reliable in hitting them for big yardage when they did.  But more often, there was just nothing to even throw to.

 

You're looking at it as a "step backward" this season, when the reality is that he was just carrying right on from last season up until the injuries hit him.  That's something that should probably show up in the stats somewhere if you're insistent on using that methodology, but you have to actually engage with it in some nuanced fashion rather than just a surface level glance.  You can call that "excuses", but i call that "context".  At the end of the day, numbers are absolutely ******* worthless abstract nonsense without context.  The core value in numbers and statistics to quantify things, is in actually truly understanding the situation and context.

[MagicMT]

2 hours ago, Tugboat said:

QB Fumbles in general are an inherently "luck" thing.  You see wild fluctuations year to year even from the best QBs.  Where they might have double the number of fumbles one year compared to the next.  And again, as was illustrated in this thread...Lawrence "lost" an absolutely unlucky or disproportionate number of the balls he put on the ground.

Heck, the "all time leaders" in that category includes guys like Favre, Brady, Elway, Eli Manning, Warren Moon, Bledsoe, Roethlisberger, Marino, Fouts, Russ, Boomer, AARon is up there too.  Good QBs lose the ball sometimes, it happens.

Alright let's do a per year average to see how the comparisons hold up: 
Lawrence = 33 fumbles in 3 years, 11/year average 
Brady = 134 fumbles over 23 season, 5,8 per season (less than half of Lawrence...) 
Elway = 137 fumbles in 16 years, 8,5/year 
Eli = 125 fumbles in 16 seasons, 7,8/year 
Bledsoe = 123 in 14 seasons, 8,8/year 
Big Ben = 115 fumbles in 18 seasons, 6,4/year   Moon = 161 fumbles in 23 season, 7/year 
Marino = 6,5/year   Fouts = 7/year    Rodgers = 6,3/year (I excluded the years he didn't start) 

Favre was the king of turnovers and he still had a way lower season average than Lawrence with 8.3 fumbles per year in average. 
Lawrence is fumbling 3 times more per season compared to all the statistical leaders you mentioned. At some point, it's not only luck.
You can say whatever you want, but since Lawrence debuted in the NFL he has the most turnover out of any player in the league. 
How can it be all bad luck? Again, he might be unlucky, but he is also definitely turnover prone at the same time. 

Edited February 24 by MagicMT

[Soggust]

2 hours ago, Tugboat said:

QB Fumbles in general are an inherently "luck" thing.  You see wild fluctuations year to year even from the best QBs.  Where they might have double the number of fumbles one year compared to the next.  And again, as was illustrated in this thread...Lawrence "lost" an absolutely unlucky or disproportionate number of the balls he put on the ground.

Heck, the "all time leaders" in that category includes guys like Favre, Brady, Elway, Eli Manning, Warren Moon, Bledsoe, Roethlisberger, Marino, Fouts, Russ, Boomer, AARon is up there too.  Good QBs lose the ball sometimes, it happens.

That one bizarre instance of a concussed Lawrence just forgetting to hold onto the football aside, he really isn't overtly careless with his carriage of the ball.

 

Moreover, even if it were a particularly valid method of judging a QB's "quality"...how many balls did say, Tua put on the ground this last year?  Dak put the ball on the ground a ton a few years ago and then completely cut that number down as he progressed in his career.  The reigning new MVP Lamar Jackson put the ball down near as makes no difference, as many times as Lawrence.  Josh Allen dropped the ball a ton the year before this one.  It just happens.  There's a huge range of variance in that with is extremely situation/context sensitive and can make wild swings to a 2X magnitude +/- with relative frequency year over year.

 

 

I mean, in the one context re: Fields you're arguing, "how am i supposed to argue with what eyes are telling me"...and in another, you're saying it's just bias because i'm not really "seeing" how the rest of the QBs in the league are playing?

I watch plenty of non-Jaguars football to get very reasonable gauge on what else is going on around the league.  And again, i'm telling you that if you actually watch Lawrence, you'll understand why the statistics that you're leaning so hard on, are not telling an accurate story.  There's a fundamental reason for this weird disconnect between outside people who think Lawrence isn't very good, and the people who have to live with the guy as their QB...who almost universally still strongly believe in him as "The Guy" and the best, most talented QB the franchise has ever seen.

 

 

 

Dak is really a great example of the exact opposite of what you're suggesting though.  His stats have been...absolutely all over the place.  The stats can lie.  They're often super situationally dependent and subject to large degrees of "luck" year to year.  That's why actually watching the players and forming those opinions is important to a more wholistic evaluation.  The numbers are just one part of the whole picture.  Dak is still the same QB regardless of whether he's coming off a year where he protected the football, or turned it over a hundred billionty times.  It's the situation and context that generates most of the variance there.

 

 

Again though, i don't think he really "took a step back" from that at all.  Prior to his injuries, he was pacing for very similar numbers statistically, and actually moving in a positive direction overall.  And that's not even talking about actually watching the team and how he got to those numbers.  Where the receiver corps was basically built to hit "homeruns" and occasionally did, but offered so much frustration watching them on any given snap where most of them did absolutely nothing to help.  Where the running game was a complete joke (as already mentioned with guys who are not ETN combining for like 240 total yards all year), and more often than not none of the receivers were even remotely open.  They'd get open by miles every now and then and Lawrence was pretty reliable in hitting them for big yardage when they did.  But more often, there was just nothing to even throw to.

 

You're looking at it as a "step backward" this season, when the reality is that he was just carrying right on from last season up until the injuries hit him.  That's something that should probably show up in the stats somewhere if you're insistent on using that methodology, but you have to actually engage with it in some nuanced fashion rather than just a surface level glance.  You can call that "excuses", but i call that "context".  At the end of the day, numbers are absolutely ******* worthless abstract nonsense without context.  The core value in numbers and statistics to quantify things, is in actually truly understanding the situation and context.

You keep framing this like I've never watched Trevor play simply because I don't agree with you, but it's possible we just don't see it the same. I only hammer the stats because there is nothing to support eye tests other than "I think / they think".

He's been in the league 3 years. We've seen plenty of Trevor and I'm simply not impressed to date. He has flashes, like all QBs do, but he doesn't have the consistency. You say Dak's inconsistent, but Dak's worst years are Trevor's best years, so I don't understand that. 

You're continually "applying context" to justify Lawrence's production, but you're not doing the same for other QBs, such as Fields, who have been in arguably worse situations. 

You can tell me "I watched them both and I think Trevor is an elite QB and Fields sucks", but that's subjective. I'm telling you that I am not impressed with either one. You may not trade Lawrence for anything in the world, but I absolutely cannot imagine the Jags being taken seriously trying to get the 1.1 for him from Chicago, much less 3 FRPs.

You're telling me his numbers are close pre-injury when they are objectively not, as was proven earlier ITT, and it's obvious that we just aren't going to come to an agreement on this.

So, at the end of the day, and I mean this 100% non-sarcastically or snarkily because even though I disagree with every single thing you said, I do respect your opinion and willingness to defend it: 

If you're content with Trevor's production to date - 235 ypg 20 TD and 13 INT / 85 rating (his avg year IGNORING FUMBLES), then all power to you my friend - but I am betting future readers will think "Trevor needs to produce better going forward, regardless of context", so I will rest my case.

[LinderFournette]

On 2/20/2024 at 12:01 AM, DigInBoys said:

If we swap Lawrence with Burrow on their respective teams these last few years is Burrow really that much better?

I would say nothing really changes for the jags.

Lawrence would look better due to having chase Higgins Boyd tho

[KhanYouDigIt]

7 hours ago, MagicMT said:

At some point, it's not only luck.
You can say whatever you want, but since Lawrence debuted in the NFL he has the most turnover out of any player in the league. 
How can it be all bad luck? Again, he might be unlucky, but he is also definitely turnover prone at the same time. 

Lawrence- 33 fumbles, 21 lost in 50 games. 64% lost

Fields- 38 fumbles, 11 lost in 40 games. 29% lost.

Lost fumbles is all about luck.