49er pride Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 3 minutes ago, Bobby816 said: Draft position doesn’t always mean everything. But it does show the likelihood of what people thought of the career path of that individual. There’s a reason Goff went #1 and there was a reason he was good last year. And that’s bc he’s good. there was also a lot of people who didn't think goff was good. Was it fair to say that he was proven as a bad qb after his first year? Where do you rank Goff among qbs today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby816 Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 1 minute ago, 49er pride said: there was also a lot of people who didn't think goff was good. Was it fair to say that he was proven as a bad qb after his first year? Where do you rank Goff among qbs today? Somewhere between 5-10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
49er pride Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 9 minutes ago, Bobby816 said: Somewhere between 5-10. so after 1 good year, you could have goff has high up as a top 5 qb, okay no point in debating this anymore LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 13 minutes ago, Bobby816 said: Draft position doesn’t always mean everything. But it does show the likelihood of what people thought of the career path of that individual. There’s a reason Goff went #1 and there was a reason he was good last year. And that’s bc he’s good. Wait...I'm confused...draft position doesn't always mean everything, but you're using it to support that Goff is proven after one year, because he was the number one overall pick.. but disregarding it with Freeman because he was "just" a first round pick? Is that what I'm reading? There's a reason Freeman was a first round pick and that's because he was good. No, he wasn't a first overall pick, but that seems likely a weirdly thin line to have in trying to establish a point. No, the seventeenth overall pick isn't as luxurious as the first overall pick, but still. Honestly, not sure what where they were drafted has to do with it anyway - one year is one year. It should hold the same exact representation for either party...where they were drafted really has nothing to do with it at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby816 Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 7 minutes ago, Forge said: Wait...I'm confused...draft position doesn't always mean everything, but you're using it to support that Goff is proven after one year, because he was the number one overall pick.. but disregarding it with Freeman because he was "just" a first round pick? Is that what I'm reading? There's a reason Freeman was a first round pick and that's because he was good. No, he wasn't a first overall pick, but that seems likely a weirdly thin line to have in trying to establish a point. No, the seventeenth overall pick isn't as luxurious as the first overall pick, but still. Honestly, not sure what where they were drafted has to do with it anyway - one year is one year. It should hold the same exact representation for either party...where they were drafted really has nothing to do with it at that point. Imo it isn’t a thin line. For comparable reasons I see a big gap in a talent like Rosen and Jackson in this draft. Both will be 1st Rounders probably but expectations are different. Where a player gets drafted doesn’t always show the talent, but it does however big time affect how long the string is on a player. Goff didn’t look so good in 2016. But was that his fault? He didn’t have a good line, Gurkey was injured and a pretty weak WR group. LA last offseason addressed a lot of that and some got healthy and you saw Goff succeed. Is he still developing? Absolutely. But if he was a 6th Rounder and looked awful at the end of 2016 he probably wouldn’t have started in 2017. So in that regard, yes where you get drafted does make a difference. There also a difference in talent. A guy like Mayfield is regarded as a better prospect than say EJ Manuel was. Although they could get drafted in a similar range for all we know. Your debate doesn’t take at all into consideration how strong the prospect of draft class actually is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 8 minutes ago, Bobby816 said: Imo it isn’t a thin line. For comparable reasons I see a big gap in a talent like Rosen and Jackson in this draft. Both will be 1st Rounders probably but expectations are different. Where a player gets drafted doesn’t always show the talent, but it does however big time affect how long the string is on a player. Goff didn’t look so good in 2016. But was that his fault? He didn’t have a good line, Gurkey was injured and a pretty weak WR group. LA last offseason addressed a lot of that and some got healthy and you saw Goff succeed. Is he still developing? Absolutely. But if he was a 6th Rounder and looked awful at the end of 2016 he probably wouldn’t have started in 2017. So in that regard, yes where you get drafted does make a difference. There also a difference in talent. A guy like Mayfield is regarded as a better prospect than say EJ Manuel was. Although they could get drafted in a similar range for all we know. Your debate doesn’t take at all into consideration how strong the prospect of draft class actually is Because I don't think it matters once you get to the NFL. One year is one year. I don't think it arbitrarily shifts based on draft position. Odell Beckham was proven after one year, but Michael Thomas wasn't because one was a first round pick and the other was a second? It was the same amount of time for both players. Either they are or they aren't. Plenty of people flame out after one good year, and that includes all sorts of draft picks. @49er pride is talking about where that line is for determining that a player is "proven", so the bolded has absolutely nothing to do with that. I'm not sayng you're wrong - he probably wouldn't have started, but again, what in the world does that have to do with when you consider someone proven at the NFL level? So let's throw Freeman out the door. Are you suggesting that RG3 was a proven NFL quarterback after his rookie year, but Russell Wilson wasn't because of where they were drafted? Also, what does RG3 do to your Goff comp? He was the #2 overall pick, heisman trophy winner, great rookie year. Then he fell apart for a myriad of reasons - and definitely not all injury related. It's exactly what @49er prideis talking about - one great year does not a proven player make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
49er pride Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 the most hilarious thing about this is that if and when Goff does establish himself as a great qb, this guy will refer back to this thread saying how he knew all along. Potential=/= proven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby816 Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 19 minutes ago, Forge said: Because I don't think it matters once you get to the NFL. One year is one year. I don't think it arbitrarily shifts based on draft position. Odell Beckham was proven after one year, but Michael Thomas wasn't because one was a first round pick and the other was a second? It was the same amount of time for both players. Either they are or they aren't. Plenty of people flame out after one good year, and that includes all sorts of draft picks. @49er pride is talking about where that line is for determining that a player is "proven", so the bolded has absolutely nothing to do with that. I'm not sayng you're wrong - he probably wouldn't have started, but again, what in the world does that have to do with when you consider someone proven at the NFL level? So let's throw Freeman out the door. Are you suggesting that RG3 was a proven NFL quarterback after his rookie year, but Russell Wilson wasn't because of where they were drafted? Also, what does RG3 do to your Goff comp? He was the #2 overall pick, heisman trophy winner, great rookie year. Then he fell apart for a myriad of reasons - and definitely not all injury related. It's exactly what @49er prideis talking about - one great year does not a proven player make. People become proven at different times. Some never become proven. RG3 absolutely was proven but injuries took over. That’s a whole Other conversation though. Bc I don’t agree with you that there were lots of other factors. I think it was big time injury related and that’s had to do with his style of play. Marquita you see the same thing with. He’s already had some injury issues, but teams knew that when drafting a running QB. The argument on Goff is that you all aren’t anointing him good yet bc if 1 year. Im looking beyond that and see a guy who looked great in college and showed he can play at the nfl level. I have no reason to think at this point he won’t be a great QB. Can’t things change that like injury? Absolutely. But like I stated with RG3 that doesn’t mean they weren’t a good QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
49er pride Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 once again potential=/=proven. He isn't proven because you see him playing well in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Issue Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 I watched every snap of Goff's rookie year. I saw the potential. I could put context to the numbers, look past them, and see what we had. And I liked it. I watched every snap last season. And saw the strides he was making. And was very comfortable with his progress. I think he will continue to improve and become a regular consideration for the pro bowl and occasionally for 2nd team all pro. Maybe make the first team once or twice after a particularly good season. I think he is that type of QB. I havent watched enough of Garrapalo to say anything about him one way or the other. But I am happy with my guy. And I am not bent if anyone would rather have Jimmy G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby816 Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 1 hour ago, 49er pride said: once again potential=/=proven. He isn't proven because you see him playing well in the future. So how many games then for you does it take for that player to play to say he’s proven then? Bc Goff has played 22 games so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 28 minutes ago, Bobby816 said: So how many games then for you does it take for that player to play to say he’s proven then? Bc Goff has played 22 games so far. I usually want to see 2 full seasons myself...sometimes more - depends on the disparity of the play during those two seasons. Sometimes I may want to see what a guy does a third full season if those first two are vastly different. If a guy has two really good seasons to start his career, I'm typically okay with saying he has proven himself to some level. If he's coming off a good rookie season, I want to see at least one more good season. In Goff's case, it'll be a little more over 2 full seasons with regards to games played because of the couple that he played during that rookie year but it's basically the same (I'm not actually weighing those rookie season games at all because that whole thing was kind of a dumpster fire with Fisher). If he puts up another good season season similar to this last year, I have no problem with saying that he's proven at a certain baseline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
49er pride Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 17 minutes ago, Forge said: I usually want to see 2 full seasons myself...sometimes more - depends on the disparity of the play during those two seasons. Sometimes I may want to see what a guy does a third full season if those first two are vastly different. If a guy has two really good seasons to start his career, I'm typically okay with saying he has proven himself to some level. If he's coming off a good rookie season, I want to see at least one more good season. In Goff's case, it'll be a little more over 2 full seasons with regards to games played because of the couple that he played during that rookie year but it's basically the same (I'm not actually weighing those rookie season games at all because that whole thing was kind of a dumpster fire with Fisher). If he puts up another good season season similar to this last year, I have no problem with saying that he's proven at a certain baseline. pretty much this. It's case by case, but two years at the minimum. If Watson doesn't tear his ACL and finishes among the top qbs, I would still have a problem with someone putting him in the top 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatriotsWin! Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 Goff has by far the better weapons and might get the better stats next year but come on, Jimmy is EASILY the more talented/better QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 2 hours ago, PatriotsWin! said: Goff has by far the better weapons and might get the better stats next year but come on, Jimmy is EASILY the more talented/better QB. Go on.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.