NFL News & Notes

[coachbuns]

1 hour ago, Leader said:

ProFootballReference -  Lowest % of passes dropped:

1. Ryan Tannehill - 2.3%
2. Matt Ryan - 2.8%
3. Lamar Jackson - 2.9%
4. Matthew Stafford - 3.2%
5. Aaron Rodgers - 3.4%

Where and how do you have the time to find this stuff?  Really like it cuz I don't.

[deathstar]

20 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Look at how many quarterbacks are taken in each draft.  It’s probably like... 10?  Now compare a QB bust rate in later rounds and all rounds to every other position.  QB is becoming among the easiest positions to play in an NFL that wants points.  Of course a 3rd-7th round QB is going to bust.  90% of 3rd-7th round picks at all positions fail.

Holy moving goal posts man. You start off by saying chiefs should draft a Stafford in the first round; now we are just talking random rookie QB facts.

[MacReady]

Just now, deathstar said:

Holy moving goal posts man. You start off by saying chiefs should draft a Stafford in the first round; now we are just talking random rookie QB facts.

This entire post of yours doesn’t make any ****ing sense.  I didn’t move the goal posts, my point didn’t change.  If you can find a Gardner M. In the sixth round, a Kyle Allen in the whatever round, Jackson 32nd, Wilson in the 2nd, etc and the bust rate at the position is lower than it ever has been, it stands to reason you can find a good one in the first round.  
 

What I proposed is literally what the Chiefs did with Alex Smith.  How’d it work?  You do it again.  If you don’t have faith in what you see out of the QB for a full year of practice, training camp, preseason... Then yeah, extend Mahomes and trade that QB for a first.  
 

Get out of here with saying I’m moving goal posts when you can’t even follow simple logic.

Easy to find quarterbacks throughout the draft, bust rate lower than it’s ever been, same point from the beginning, just expanded upon. 

Edit: All of what I just said was mean, and I'm sorry.  Too lazy to edit it, but my point stands and it should read something more like this: My point hasn't changed.  The easier it is to find a good QB throughout the draft means it's that much easier to find one at the end of or in the first round. 

 

Edited December 4, 2019 by Outpost31

[OneTwoSixFive]

1 hour ago, Outpost31 said:

Look at how many quarterbacks are taken in each draft.  It’s probably like... 10?  Now compare a QB bust rate in later rounds and all rounds to every other position.  QB is becoming among the easiest positions to play in an NFL that wants points.  Of course a 3rd-7th round QB is going to bust.  90% of 3rd-7th round picks at all positions fail.

https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015/2/20/8072877/what-the-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round

Historic Success Chart

The numbers show us the following outline for finding consistent starters:

1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)

2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%)

3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)

4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%)

5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%)

6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%)

7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%)

[MacReady]

Just now, OneTwoSixFive said:

https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015/2/20/8072877/what-the-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round

Historic Success Chart

The numbers show us the following outline for finding consistent starters:

1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)

2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%)

3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)

4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%)

5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%)

6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%)

7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%)

It says right in the beginning this is from 2004 - 2014. 

There have been 47 rule changes from 2002 - 2018 to prevent concussions alone.  Every single one of those rules helps an offense, thus a QB.  Now think of all the rule changes from 2004 and on solely meant to help offenses and quarterbacks. 

Look at the success rate for quarterbacks since 2014 and I'm sure they're significantly better than they are from 2004-2014. 

Edited December 4, 2019 by Outpost31

[OneTwoSixFive]

2 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

It says right in the beginning this is from 2004 - 2014. 

This is just to give people an idea, I admit it isn't recent. I thought that since we were discussing this very subject it would be useful, it wasn't meant as a criticism of anyone, just put out there for information.

Edited December 4, 2019 by OneTwoSixFive

[MacReady]

Just now, OneTwoSixFive said:

This is just to give people an idea, I admit it isn't recent. I thought that since we were discussing this very subject it would be useful, it wasn't meant as a criticism of anyone, just put out there for information.

Yeah, it would be useful if you could compare it to 2015-2019.  I'm sure it would prove my point.  If I have time at work tonight I might go through the drafts of 2015-2019 and see. 

[deathstar]

2 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

This entire post of yours doesn’t make any ****ing sense.  I didn’t move the goal posts, my point didn’t change.  If you can find a Gardner M. In the sixth round, a Kyle Allen in the whatever round, Jackson 32nd, Wilson in the 2nd, etc and the bust rate at the position is lower than it ever has been, it stands to reason you can find a good one in the first round.  
 

What I proposed is literally what the Chiefs did with Alex Smith.  How’d it work?  You do it again.  If you don’t have faith in what you see out of the QB for a full year of practice, training camp, preseason... Then yeah, extend Mahomes and trade that QB for a first.  
 

Get out of here with saying I’m moving goal posts when you can’t even follow simple logic.

Easy to find quarterbacks throughout the draft, bust rate lower than it’s ever been, same point from the beginning, just expanded upon. 

Edit: All of what I just said was mean, and I'm sorry.  Too lazy to edit it, but my point stands and it should read something more like this: My point hasn't changed.  The easier it is to find a good QB throughout the draft means it's that much easier to find one at the end of or in the first round. 

 

Dude, don’t worry about being mean. It’s just incomprehensible to me that you think a team should not extend Mahomes because they plan on drafting a Minshew. I understand that recently young QBs have had some success; but you’re really ignoring how many QB busts there are past the top ten and how a large number of those QBs you listed amounted to nothing in their careers.

[MacReady]

9 minutes ago, deathstar said:

Dude, don’t worry about being mean. It’s just incomprehensible to me that you think a team should not extend Mahomes because they plan on drafting a Minshew. I understand that recently young QBs have had some success; but you’re really ignoring how many QB busts there are past the top ten and how a large number of those QBs you listed amounted to nothing in their careers.

For ****’s sake none of what you said I said did I say.  
 

Year before Patrick’s final year, draft a QB round one.  Get a good look at him for a full year while letting Patrick give you one more elite year and a chance at a Super Bowl.  IF you think the QB you just drafted is a 4,000, 30, 10 QB, you trade Mahomes and get 5 first round picks plus 30 extra million per year to build around the next QB after you franchise tag Mahomes, then trade him.

Look at how many teams crumble after winning the Super Bowl.  They’re completely out of cap space, out of draft capital, and chances are they’re Flaccoing themselves.  But imagine winning the Super Bowl, having a second year first round pick at QB and getting what you can for prime Mahomes.  

[deathstar]

9 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

For ****’s sake none of what you said I said did I say.  
 

Year before Patrick’s final year, draft a QB round one.  Get a good look at him for a full year while letting Patrick give you one more elite year and a chance at a Super Bowl.  IF you think the QB you just drafted is a 4,000, 30, 10 QB, you trade Mahomes and get 5 first round picks plus 30 extra million per year to build around the next QB after you franchise tag Mahomes, then trade him.

Look at how many teams crumble after winning the Super Bowl.  They’re completely out of cap space, out of draft capital, and chances are they’re Flaccoing themselves.  But imagine winning the Super Bowl, having a second year first round pick at QB and getting what you can for prime Mahomes.  

The difference I’m seeing is that you’re leaving the door open to extending Mahomes if the QB you just drafted doesn’t work out. Is that right?

[MacReady]

1 minute ago, deathstar said:

The difference I’m seeing is that you’re leaving the door open to extending Mahomes if the QB you just drafted doesn’t work out. Is that right?

Yes.  I’ve suggested that since the first post on the issue.  Because even if that QB is a major bust, you’ll see that.  Other teams won’t.  So you let leak he’s a bargaining chip for the new contract and suggest Mahomes is asking for 50 million per.  If that rookie QB sucks and you know he’ll suck, just pretend you’re negotiating with Mahomes and tag him and then once you re-sign him, you trade that rookie.

I’d personally trade Mahomes regardless.  He’s going to cost more than he’s worth and that cost will make the Chiefs lose pieces to help him.  

[Mr. Fussnputz]

16 minutes ago, deathstar said:

The difference I’m seeing is that you’re leaving the door open to extending Mahomes if the QB you just drafted doesn’t work out. Is that right?

I think OP's point is, if possible, you never want to give a QB a second contract. Either because they proved not to be very good and didn't earn one, or because they played really well and the second contract would be so expensive that it would blow up your cap numbers making it impossible to build a decent team around him. The only exception is if the drafted replacement looks like a bust, then extend and try again in the draft. It's an interesting thought experiment. My apologies to OP if I misrepresented his idea. 

[MacReady]

14 minutes ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

I think OP's point is, if possible, you never want to give a QB a second contract. Either because they proved not to be very good and didn't earn one, or because they played really well and the second contract would be so expensive that it would blow up your cap numbers making it impossible to build a decent team around him. The only exception is if the drafted replacement looks like a bust, then extend and try again in the draft. It's an interesting thought experiment. My apologies to OP if I misrepresented his idea. 

Nope, you got it right on.  

[Leader]

38 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Nope, you got it right on.  

That could become a hard sell to the fan base. A top tier talent that you dont want to pay top dollar......gets shipped off somewhere for a hoped for haul of draft talent (which you contend in other threads is a true crapshoot....) which could easily lead to a dip in team performance / record (if the next man up's ceiling isnt quite as high as hoped).....while, (hopefully.....) the guy you just shipped off (at the top of his game and the prime of his career...i.e. - thats why he's worth top dollar) doesnt take his new team to the promised land. Might incur the wrath of some fans on social media.....and elsewhere.

Edited December 4, 2019 by Leader

[deathstar]

2 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

Yes.  I’ve suggested that since the first post on the issue.  Because even if that QB is a major bust, you’ll see that.  Other teams won’t.  So you let leak he’s a bargaining chip for the new contract and suggest Mahomes is asking for 50 million per.  If that rookie QB sucks and you know he’ll suck, just pretend you’re negotiating with Mahomes and tag him and then once you re-sign him, you trade that rookie.

I’d personally trade Mahomes regardless.  He’s going to cost more than he’s worth and that cost will make the Chiefs lose pieces to help him.  

So QB1 refuses to sign an extension and holds out. Now what?