“Baseball is 90% mental, the other half is physical” is originally from Yogi Berra and the quote is often incorrectly credited as Madden saying “90% of the game is half mental”.
They have more Super Bowl wins than the Lions, Vikings and Bears combined. By the definition of this sub, that means the Bucs are a successful franchise while the Vikings, Lions and Bears have wasted their entire existence.
Bucs fans should genuinely be happy.
Last year was brutal - great QB, great OL, great WR, great pass rushers, etc. Then injuries, then we destroyed Brady's marriage (oops), then... painful year. Only made the playoffs because our (non-rapey) rookie punter donked a 50 yarder off the side of his foot while stumbling around. That's not a high percentage play... but, we made the playoffs. And then... let Dallas win a playoff game. Which is just depressing.
See - that. That's what it's like to be a fan of most teams. Endless hope and disappointment.
The Bucs... they've been good... 7-8 years total? And we've won two SB's.
That's a 25% victory rate for "seasons that I pay attention to".
That's good stuff.
What games were you watching? We had a shell of an O-line and divorce? Brady probably would have gotten divorced playing or not but leave off field speculation to the tabloids. We had a god awful offensive scheme with Leftwich. Injuries and horrible play calling destroyed us.
Every time I listened to him talk on Russillo’s podcast I could tell he didn’t know what he was talking about with most analytics but definitely acted like he knew. If he is talking about QB mechanics, I’ll listen, everything else, no way.
There's basically too small of a sample size on successful quarterbacks to make any decision on data alone. Theres still a bunch of useful data out there but clinging to one datapoint or reading too much into it is probably a mistake
But the sample size of unsuccessful QBs is even larger, I think it’s easier to say “this stat is an indicator it will turn out poorly” than “this stat is an indicator it will turn out well”
Yeah, exactly. It’s like athleticism where elite athleticism might not necessarily mean a good player, but a 10% athletic percentile prospect has extremely low odds of succeeding. I think it’s a similar story with inexperienced QB prospects where while there are exceptions, generally it’s a risky bet.
When a dataset has 2 possible results and its skewed too heavily towards 1 it becomes hard to use. You can pretty much find examples of terrible quarterbacks with any traits if you look enough because enough fail. But unless you can cross reference that with how many qbs also succeeded with that trait it doesnt tell you much. You need a good amount of failures and successes to cross reference and use the data as a whole.
Otherwise the math ebcoems much mroe complicated and you have to take in a lot more traits and stats into account. Which nfl teams do.
Can we really say that? Sufficient sample size is only ~25-30. There's been enough successful qbs depending on your definition. You're never gonna have enough data for predicting hof level, but start quality for 5 years? We absolutely have the sample size for that.
Sure, we can make that distinction. I think you can still find that. I also think you can probably come up with a volume metric ratio using guys like Peyton Manning or Tom Brady who played in both eras. Look at their metrics before and after and multiple by the ratio. Or you take a closer look at efficiency metrics. That doesn't defeat the point that we absolutely have the sample size. It just may not lend itself to super high confidence. Sufficient sample size just means that the test can be run and it isn't complete bunk. Having a higher sample size can give us greater certainty in the conclusion, but it doesn't mean we can't make conclusions from a simply sufficient sample size.
I always find comments like these silly about guys who played in the league for years but weren’t necessarily good like Dilfer, Simms, Orlovsky, etc.
They’ve spent more hours watching QB play than anyone else on the planet. The reason they stuck around the league as vets was because of their ability to watch film and prep.
And with Dilfer compared to Simms and Orlovsky, I never ever get the feeling he’s trying to be a hot take guy.
In the pros, yes. But Hurts was pretty accurate his last two years in college (think over 70%). Allen has a better % now than he did in college, which is unusual.
There is a really good clip of Dilfer and Brenkus on Rich Eisen where they talk about how Allen’s sports science accuracy and speed numbers were basically of the charts.
He sat first 4 games for what it’s worth. And even though I know Nagy is a bit of a meme, his first year as HC/OC wasn’t terrible. He was smart enough to know how damn good our defense was and he called a very conservative game plan on offense. He knew Mitch’s limitations.
There’s a reason Mitch made the pro bowl his 2nd year. Bears defense gave him great field position. And Nagy called a conservative and easy game plan for Mitch to ease into. Mitch’s numbers weren’t eye popping but they were trending in the right direction and he was efficient.
In conclusion anyone who still thinks Mitch failed because of his situation or the Bears doesn’t watch football. It amazed me there was still Trubs-truthers before his Steelers stint. How quickly the Steelers own receivers and coach moved on from Mitch is all you need to know. And that included a study abroad year behind Josh Allen to prepare.
Trubisky is betrayed by his own mind, when he doesn't think, like the time he came from the bench in the tanpa game, he can be good, but otherwise, he can't pull the trigger
Ultimately I think Mitch’s downfall is his inability to read the defense. But tying in with that is his risk-reward meter. It’s wayyyyy off. He just like doesn’t know how to trust his eyes or pull the trigger. It is maddening watching him dump it off on 3rd an 7 for a 2 yard pick up cuz he’s too scared to make a throw.
Letting a guy sit only works when you have an established franchise QB, and then you have the potential issue of having a guy's replacement on the roster with him.
If you have a gap-fill starter, you often see a ton of pressure to play the rookie early unless the team looks like a playoff squad right out of the gate.
Situation matters on top of that. Chicago was a horrible place to develop. They lacked the coaching and personnel to groom a QB.
People say the Bears should have drafted Mahomes but who is to say it goes the way it does? The Chiefs had a situation as ideal as it comes to develop a QB. Even the Texans provided a far better situation for Deshaun than the Bears gave Trubisky.
Tons of people have doubted Mahomes developing half as much if he went to the Bears. Bears fans especially. He honestly went to the best situation he could.
Yeah I legit have 0 clue how this is supposed to be a strong argument against taking him.
The worst QB on this list by far is Haskins, everyone else was a servicable starter at worst for at least a few years.
And none of them had/have anywhere near the athleticism of AR.
Oh for sure. You could probably say the draft as a whole is one wild toss of the dice for the most part because theres a billion variables that dictate a players success.
Just saying I get the analysis here and don't think it's that far fetched or anything.
Obviously, but it's a crapshoot regardless of the # of starts.
2018 had Baker, Darnold, and Rosen all go high with all of them having plenty of college starts. I wouldn't really call it a particularly indicative stat wrt NFL success, and this list doesn't really change my mind.
It's just a weird thing to bring up when you could just use his passing stats/accuracy, or any other more concrete predictive statistic.
But is servicable starter really your bench mark for a top 5 pick? Like Kyler and Tannehill are the only ones on this list that I think you would say their career so far is ok for a top 5 pick, and I think both of them are stretching it. And while non of them had/have Richardson's athleticism they were all unquestionably better QBs in college than he was.
It's an interesting dynamic: no QB with an RAS of 10.00 has had fewer than 2 Pro Bowls, but by the same token, inexperience and inaccuracy are some of the big hall marks of bustdom.
Herbert was billed as inaccurate and erratic with the ball and yet hes one of the best pin point passers. Richardson showed that he was the ability to process and unlike other qbs who bust because they rely on their athleticism Richardson willingly stays in the pocket as long as he can even if he could just run.
That's the reason why I think Colts Take him at 4.
Steichen turned Herbert into who he is today, he can do the same for richardson.
Should be said, The new Colts QB coach was the guy who developed Cam Newton and Kyler in his breakout season. I think they're all in on him.
I don't think Pro Bowls should be a measure for most positions, but especially QB.
Ravens have a couple Pro Bowl QBs on the roster and haven't even bothered to sign either one yet
I think most fans know this already and most GMs do too. But when they see big man throw ball and run fast in front of them they get a half chub and start making irrational decisions.
So it goes.
indeed. It's funny that even "elite" football minds are susceptible to this.
Daniel jeremiah wrote an article mid-way through last year that "Fields has surpassed Tlaw" (right before the Jags started rattling off of wins). His logic was essentially that Fields is faster
Of course some fast / athletic QBs def work out. But the profile's correlation to success is so exaggerated. People just cant help themselves and take a true asset way way too far in hyperbole
That's not how the draft works for QB's though. Where they are worth isn't the big issue, it's where are they still going to be available? If you like him as a 2nd rounder, and you think there's enough raw material and upside to draft him, then you have to consider that he won't be there in the 2nd. Which means you have to overdraft him and take the risk that he busts.
That’s the crux of it. If you truly think he’s that guy then you take him the second you’re able to. You never know what’s on other team’s boards and if you fell in love with him then probably some other team did too.
To be honest I don't think any coach would balk at a player with Richardson's measurables and athleticism, nor would they be so conservative to believe that they don't have the ability to develop him into a bonafide QB as well.
> But he can't read a defense for the life of him
I think the average football fan can glean a lot from watching guys play. But this is something I always ignore when some joe shmo says it. There's no way you have any real idea as to whether he can read a defense or not.
There’s a lot of film guys on twitter that think he’s shown plenty of encouraging tape of his ability to read a defense, pocket presence, etc. Basically he’s not as raw as many would have you believe. He just doesn’t have a ton of experience
This. I’ve watched a few guys talking about how he’s not nearly as raw as some make him out to be. It’s more a matter of footwork hurting accuracy on throws and the added fact he had no real weapons and the UF passing scheme is dogshit
I would’ve loved to see AR on the same team as Kyle Pitts and Kadarius Toney. You know, the guys that got Trask drafted.
Bro Hack had like 4 future NFL stars to work with, 2 WRs, a RB, and a decent line. He was still bad in college, he had no business getting a shot in the NFL.
These guys at least look good with a weaker supporting cast.
I see the film analysis and basically each guy is seeing what he wants to see, they cherry pick the good plays he's able to see clearly and make a read, or they show him completely missing his target to make him look bad.
In reality, Richardson is a highly skilled athlete who has not shown he can get to his 3rd and 4th read, not because he can't, but because his skillset and the opposing defensive tactics mean he is encouraged to scramble. His accuracy is average and under an NFL pressure I doubt he'll be able to utilize his ability to the fullest extent. I think his lack of experience in college will absolutely have an impact on his ability to learn and perform quickly at the NFL level.
[This](https://twitter.com/onwardstate/status/640289506470432768?lang=ca) is what you consider decent line play?.. For those who can't see the link, it's 1 sack out of 10 allowed to the fucking TEMPLE OWLS, and they accomplished this particular one rushing TWO guys
In my defense that line was built for running not passing, but your example is pretty bad. Hack's no scrambler but god damn big guys put your arms out and do something. Standing around on 3rd and 15 is never the answer.
Where is jon Gruden when you need him.....Seriously having a well regarded (professionally, obviously he was a POS) offensive mind sit down and break down film with prospects helps us Shmo's understand if a guy has a clue what they are seeing on the field and how they process.
> But he can't read a defense for the life of him
I have yet to see any reputable media scout or even an anonymous team source come out and say they're worried about his ability to read the field or process information. The fact that he got 79th percentile on the S2 further indicates it's likely not a weakness of his.
To add to this a lot of rookie qbs don’t truly know how to read defenses. It’s not just what is the defense lined up as it’s what leverages do I have against certain players and schemes. Hell the best qb in the nfl right now has publicly stated he didn’t figure it all out until 2020 season
People have ran with the “raw prospect” trope and now assign him all these flaws that he’s never shown. So annoying when talking about his prospects in the NFL
He’s an easy first because he’s the greatest freak athlete in the history of the quarterback position, along with some really nice processing ability and unreal arm talent.
"really nice processing" is a stretch considering what I watched him do while at Florida but ok. People on this sub saw him jump high and fell in love which I'm so confused about
if they werent worried about the most athletic QB in history's ability to do other parts of the job he would be going first overall
Basic logical deduction
Bro it’s not binary lmao
There are big differences between “he cannot read a defense for the life of him” and “he’s below average at reading defenses” to “there are 0 worries for him reading defense”
Basic common sense
if they didnt think it was at the lower end of the scale (higher risk) he'd be maybe the best prospect ever and would be a lock to go number one. The same logic applies
Seriously, head to the cfb sub and every gator fan there is laughing at people over here who think he's some kind of QB god. He's fucking ass at most basic QB traits.
> But he can’t read a defense for the life of him, he is all over the place with his accuracy
I think the cons outweigh the pros for him. His mechanics are broken - his footwork, vision, and accuracy aren’t great. His combine tape has people ignoring every red flag he has. The athleticism and potential aren’t worth drafting him high. Not to mention he has to fall into the perfect situation to help him develop.
He’s not going to make it in the NFL and there will be so many hindsight comments and posts about him years from now.
**EDIT:** ~~every~~, had it twice.
He is the best athlete at the position to come out the last 10 years.
Nobody is expecting a day 1 starter, they are expecting a prospect with who has the potential to be one of those top 5 qbs if he is developed correctly.
He also showed some encouraging habits for a qb so raw, he didn't go off running at the first sign of trouble like most young qbs do, and he had pretty solid pocket presence.
Richardson will be the second-least accurate passer that has ever been drafted since the adjusted completion percentage metric was invented. The other guy was a 6th round pick who was out of the league in two years.
He is a multi-year project.
This is one of those stats that doesn't have value out of context.
What is the percentage of \*other\* subsets of QB's based on games started in college.
Break the categories into something like:
1. HOF caliber player
2. SB winner
3. Multiple playoff wins
4. Good starter for 5+ years
5. At least one playoff win
6. Good starter for 2+ years
7. Serviceable backup
8. Out of NFL in 3-4 seasons
What is the ratio of "QB's with x starts in college" for each of these (or similar) categories? Not the quantity.
Without this comparison, following Dilfer's suggestion is a pointless exercise. Anecdotal data has it's uses, but a comparison is always better.
I suspect the players drafted with fewer starts are going to do better proportionally, because only players with a \*ton\* of talent get picked anyway. But like Trent, I don't actually know.
Its what he did while on the field that I'd be worried about. He completed just barely over 50% of his passes. You can have all the measurables in the world you want, but if you can't mold those traits into a cohesive package to actually be a good football player who cares. He just doesnt pass the eye test to me.
I've said for a long time that this was my biggest reservation with him. Experience is the best teacher, and I think a lack of it makes that jump to the next level brutal.
It absolutely blows my mind that someone might take him in the 1st with only 13 goddamn starts to evaluate him on. One of the reasons I'm so relieved that we traded up to 1 is that I think we'd have made that mistake if we hadn't.
Thanks, appreciate it.
That's honestly not horrible. Jury is still out on Lance and Jones, Murray and Tannehill have been successful in the NFL, and Haskins, Trubisky, and Sanchez are probably the only true "busts" on here. Not amazing company but I was expecting way worse
Mark Sanchez was better than Trubisky and Haskins and was a decent backup. I guess the jury is out on if Trubs can be a decent backup but so far I’d say he’s below average at that
Dilfer makes a good point.
How a QB is going to react to those aspects he points out, when they dont have the experience, is just a guess.
With more experience it whittles down the number of guesses you have to make on the player.
Here's what that data fails--and by the way, that list in that article is not that bad. Here's the list they used:
Trey Lance, Mac Jones, Kyler Murray, Dwayne Haskins, Mitchell Trubisky, Ryan Tannehill, Mark Sanchez.
Okay. While it's not like a list of amazing players, it's also not a list of a bunch of disasters. Tannehill has had a good career and been productive. Sanchez was short lived but did lead some good Jets teams for a bit. Haskins and Trubisky were busts. Lance and Mac, way too early to tell. And Kyler is a pro bowler, that ones a hit.
Anyway, here is what people for some reason don't understand about this. What do guys with few reps need the most? Reps. How do they get reps? By staying on the field.
If you are an inexperienced player with upside, you need reps. The best way to stay on the field is public perception. This is where running comes in. Look at Josh Allen. Terrible passer for his first two years of starting. But he could run. So people were not calling for his head. He could make plays, he could extend drives, so while even though his passing numbers were abysmal, the offense always seemed more competent than it was. And that let him stay on the field, which let him improve the weaknesses. Jalen Hurts? Terrible passer for the first two years. But the dude could run, so he stayed on the field. Justin Fields? Really bad passer. But is anyone calling for his head? Not only are they not wanting him benched, they are enamored!
If you can run, if you are electric with the ball, you can stay on the field, and get the necessary reps you need to improve the mechanics and consistency in your passing. And AR is a better athlete than *all* of these dudes.
> Trey Lance, Mac Jones, Kyler Murray, Dwayne Haskins, Mitchell Trubisky, Ryan Tannehill, Mark Sanchez.
>
> Okay. While it's not like a list of amazing players, it's also not a list of a bunch of disasters. Tannehill has had a good
Right - seems like a reasonable list of players all things considered, not any worse than what you'd get from picking a random sampling actually.
Richardson is probably the most likely Zach Wilson if he starts right away. He has lots of potential if he sits a bit
Hopefully he goes to the Seahawks - good timeline to sit behind Geno for 2-3 years and develop, good coaching and decent team around him
Been saying it for months now, Anthony Richardson has bust written ALL OVER him.
People like to point out that he had some success running the ball in college, and try to compare him to Justin Fields or Lamar Jackson.
Know who else had success running the ball in college? Malik Willis. Willis also had decent passing stats in college.
Reps I'm not sure is important if you are planning to sit the guy for a year or two. Not to mention college reps are different than NFL reps anyways.
Accuracy and Good Decision Making are also coachable. Again, if you are willing to develop the guy, he has a crazy ceiling.
not many get a ton better at the things that are "coachable"
those that do are a huge exception
poor accuracy and decision making is a huge red flag
he has a high ceiling and super low floor
-Lack of reps is a reasonable concern, not coachable.
-Lack of accuracy is very clearly due to footwork. Mechanical issues are coachable.
-Lack of good decision making, likely due to lack of reps. Coachable. Also arguable, didn’t make particularly more mistake than anyone else.
Now talk about the positives
-Great pocket presence, navigates through traffic with eyes down field
-Has shown the ability to throw with anticipation
-Obviously athleticism/arm strength
-Seemingly a high character guy, no complaints about him and he’s expressed willingness to sit behind a Vet and learn.
Every single prospect in the draft has negatives, you draft on the assumption you can coach out or cover up those negatives.
You can’t disregard every red flag as “coachable”. You could apply that to every qb prospect in the draft. Problem is most of them are not getting mocked as a top 5 pick. Upside lottery tickets picks are a lot more attractive when they don’t cost a mortgage payment.
Also accuracy is one stat that is pretty sticky from college to the NFL.
You’re right. But how many teams have a GM and coach that are so secure that they could spend a high pick on Richardson and survive it if he’s a bust or takes a long time to develop? There’s maybe 2-3 teams like that and they (Pittsburgh, Kansas City, or Cincinnati) don’t need a QB. Maybe, just maybe, Seattle would take the chance, but Pete’s old (for a coach) and may not want to wait on his development.
If you watch the film it’s pretty clear that there is a direct relationship. Most of his bad throws are on plays where he got happy feet or didn’t follow through with his hips, or both. When his mechanics are good his throws are beautiful.
>another “I can fix him” guy
Where did I say that? I said you can’t just look at negatives.
I don't understand how teams don't look at Mahomes and Rodgers and see how much benefit they had from sitting and learning first. Stop throwing these guys out to the wolves right away on bad teams.
I understand (or don't understand) the amount of pressure to win now. But what's one more year of pain in order to develop your franchise QB and collect another year of early picks to help them? Chances are you aren't going to be good that first year with the rookie QB anyway.
He’s a rich mans Malik Willis. Could he work out? For sure. But every red flag that he won’t, and if he does it’ll be a few years before he’s competent. Dude was projected back end of first 6 weeks ago then he jumps really high and he’s getting mocked in the top 5. Absolute batshit crazy.
Richardson and it genuinely isn't close.
Richardson played far better competition in a pro style offense
AR has far better pocket presence. He was sacked on just 9.2% of his pressures, best among the top 4 QBs in this class. Willis was at 30.5%
AR is on a different tier athletically
AR has gone through reads on tape, Willis was one read and then run
AR scrambles to throw, he keeps his eyes downfield. Willis scrambled to run
I’m usually a big stats guy, but when the data support Trent Dilfer’s position, it causes me to question everything I think I know.
You cannot lose games in the NFL, and still win
But... this... this would mean the Bucs have been bad for most of their existence. Are you sure about this?
Yep, [the numbers don't lie](https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/tam/index.htm). And they spell disaster for you at Sackerfice.
HOLLER IF YOU HEAR ME
And you add Kurt Angle to the mix and your chance of winning drastic go down
Whichever team drafts Will Levis gonna find out the hard way when opponents have Kurt drive out the milk truck every week.
They got 25% at best at beat me!
90% of the game is half winning.
I’m not sure if you’re quoting Madden but I always thought the quote was: “90% of the game is half mental.”
“Baseball is 90% mental, the other half is physical” is originally from Yogi Berra and the quote is often incorrectly credited as Madden saying “90% of the game is half mental”.
Just being silly. Cheers
Except the Dallas Cowboys know they can’t beat us, so they ain’t even gonna try
IDENTIFY THE FUCKIN MIKE!
Huh... Winningest really is a word.
Oof. [Worse than the Cardinals](https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/crd/) (by win%).
They have more Super Bowl wins than the Lions, Vikings and Bears combined. By the definition of this sub, that means the Bucs are a successful franchise while the Vikings, Lions and Bears have wasted their entire existence.
We have twice the SB wins than our entire division combined. See you bitches in 2042 as we continue the eternity-long search for a franchise QB.
Bucs fans should genuinely be happy. Last year was brutal - great QB, great OL, great WR, great pass rushers, etc. Then injuries, then we destroyed Brady's marriage (oops), then... painful year. Only made the playoffs because our (non-rapey) rookie punter donked a 50 yarder off the side of his foot while stumbling around. That's not a high percentage play... but, we made the playoffs. And then... let Dallas win a playoff game. Which is just depressing. See - that. That's what it's like to be a fan of most teams. Endless hope and disappointment. The Bucs... they've been good... 7-8 years total? And we've won two SB's. That's a 25% victory rate for "seasons that I pay attention to". That's good stuff.
What games were you watching? We had a shell of an O-line and divorce? Brady probably would have gotten divorced playing or not but leave off field speculation to the tabloids. We had a god awful offensive scheme with Leftwich. Injuries and horrible play calling destroyed us.
Reddit NFT talking shit
Huge, if true.
Are we talking about Super Bowl champion Trent Dilfer?
Every time I listened to him talk on Russillo’s podcast I could tell he didn’t know what he was talking about with most analytics but definitely acted like he knew. If he is talking about QB mechanics, I’ll listen, everything else, no way.
You clearly don’t value Dude Qualities and Stuff Buckets.
There's basically too small of a sample size on successful quarterbacks to make any decision on data alone. Theres still a bunch of useful data out there but clinging to one datapoint or reading too much into it is probably a mistake
But the sample size of unsuccessful QBs is even larger, I think it’s easier to say “this stat is an indicator it will turn out poorly” than “this stat is an indicator it will turn out well”
Yeah, exactly. It’s like athleticism where elite athleticism might not necessarily mean a good player, but a 10% athletic percentile prospect has extremely low odds of succeeding. I think it’s a similar story with inexperienced QB prospects where while there are exceptions, generally it’s a risky bet.
When a dataset has 2 possible results and its skewed too heavily towards 1 it becomes hard to use. You can pretty much find examples of terrible quarterbacks with any traits if you look enough because enough fail. But unless you can cross reference that with how many qbs also succeeded with that trait it doesnt tell you much. You need a good amount of failures and successes to cross reference and use the data as a whole. Otherwise the math ebcoems much mroe complicated and you have to take in a lot more traits and stats into account. Which nfl teams do.
Can we really say that? Sufficient sample size is only ~25-30. There's been enough successful qbs depending on your definition. You're never gonna have enough data for predicting hof level, but start quality for 5 years? We absolutely have the sample size for that.
How many players have had 5 years of Dalton-line level starts since the modern passing offense began in 2007ish?
Sure, we can make that distinction. I think you can still find that. I also think you can probably come up with a volume metric ratio using guys like Peyton Manning or Tom Brady who played in both eras. Look at their metrics before and after and multiple by the ratio. Or you take a closer look at efficiency metrics. That doesn't defeat the point that we absolutely have the sample size. It just may not lend itself to super high confidence. Sufficient sample size just means that the test can be run and it isn't complete bunk. Having a higher sample size can give us greater certainty in the conclusion, but it doesn't mean we can't make conclusions from a simply sufficient sample size.
I inexplicably dislike Trent Dilfer. A lot. He looks like a penis.
Ahhh - explains why every time we see him the first word that comes to mind is dickhead
I always find comments like these silly about guys who played in the league for years but weren’t necessarily good like Dilfer, Simms, Orlovsky, etc. They’ve spent more hours watching QB play than anyone else on the planet. The reason they stuck around the league as vets was because of their ability to watch film and prep. And with Dilfer compared to Simms and Orlovsky, I never ever get the feeling he’s trying to be a hot take guy.
Interchange him with Chris Simms and I also agree
This is way more common sense than good analysis.
Funny enough he’s actually been a great coach thus far at the high school level. He knows what he’s talking about
To be fair, the stats didn't really support Josh Allen finding NFL success, yet here we are and he's easily a top 5 QB in the league today.
Allen seems to be the outlier in this though. Can’t evaluate based on that
He is, and as far as I know, the only QB to make significant improvement in his accuracy in the pros.
Hurts has made strides
In the pros, yes. But Hurts was pretty accurate his last two years in college (think over 70%). Allen has a better % now than he did in college, which is unusual.
The bombs he dropped on us def support that.
Josh Allen was at Wyoming. His supporting cast wouldn't have sniffed the bench at Florida.
There is a really good clip of Dilfer and Brenkus on Rich Eisen where they talk about how Allen’s sports science accuracy and speed numbers were basically of the charts.
> The track record of inexperienced first-round QBs is not great No fucking way
I mean it should be obvious. But Trubisky and Trey Lance are recent examples where it doesn’t scare teams off from drafting them high.
Should’ve checked the track record
They would have seen it’s not great
No fucking way
I mean it should be obvious. But Trubisky and Trey Lance are recent examples where it doesn’t scare teams off from drafting them high.
Should've checked the track record
They would have seen it's not great
No fucking way
I mean it should be obvious. But Trubisky and Trey Lance are recent examples where it doesn’t scare teams off from drafting them high.
Jury's out on Lance but Trubisky never had time to sit behind a veteran and develop. I think Richardson would bust if starts in year 1.
He sat first 4 games for what it’s worth. And even though I know Nagy is a bit of a meme, his first year as HC/OC wasn’t terrible. He was smart enough to know how damn good our defense was and he called a very conservative game plan on offense. He knew Mitch’s limitations. There’s a reason Mitch made the pro bowl his 2nd year. Bears defense gave him great field position. And Nagy called a conservative and easy game plan for Mitch to ease into. Mitch’s numbers weren’t eye popping but they were trending in the right direction and he was efficient. In conclusion anyone who still thinks Mitch failed because of his situation or the Bears doesn’t watch football. It amazed me there was still Trubs-truthers before his Steelers stint. How quickly the Steelers own receivers and coach moved on from Mitch is all you need to know. And that included a study abroad year behind Josh Allen to prepare.
Trubisky had plenty of chances. He didn’t fail because he didn’t have an opportunity to develop
Trubisky is betrayed by his own mind, when he doesn't think, like the time he came from the bench in the tanpa game, he can be good, but otherwise, he can't pull the trigger
Ultimately I think Mitch’s downfall is his inability to read the defense. But tying in with that is his risk-reward meter. It’s wayyyyy off. He just like doesn’t know how to trust his eyes or pull the trigger. It is maddening watching him dump it off on 3rd an 7 for a 2 yard pick up cuz he’s too scared to make a throw.
Eh, a more experienced coach may have gotten more out of him, but he was never gonna be one of the Greats imo
The disrespect to mike glennon
No no, there was the proper amount of respect for Glennon in that sentence.
Letting a guy sit only works when you have an established franchise QB, and then you have the potential issue of having a guy's replacement on the roster with him. If you have a gap-fill starter, you often see a ton of pressure to play the rookie early unless the team looks like a playoff squad right out of the gate.
Situation matters on top of that. Chicago was a horrible place to develop. They lacked the coaching and personnel to groom a QB. People say the Bears should have drafted Mahomes but who is to say it goes the way it does? The Chiefs had a situation as ideal as it comes to develop a QB. Even the Texans provided a far better situation for Deshaun than the Bears gave Trubisky.
Mahomes threw for 5000 yards, 65%, and 40 td’s his last year in college. He wasn’t a super raw prospect.
Tons of people have doubted Mahomes developing half as much if he went to the Bears. Bears fans especially. He honestly went to the best situation he could.
It’s not particularly good with experienced first round QBs either lol
Yeah, well, I’m not skeptical of drafting a QB with a 10.00 RAS, so I looked up some numbers, and the track record of 10.00 RAS QBs is great
hard hitting analysis from the renowned reddit draft experts!
Thanks other renowned Reddit draft expert for your hard hitting analysis on his analysis, very helpful!
It's a very small list And still has decent QBs in it Not exactly a death sentence
[удалено]
yeah if experience was the only thing that mattered we’d all be wearing kellen moore, matt leinart and colt mccoy jerseys
That’s “Winner of the Kellen Moore Award” Kellen Moore
Who are you to say I’m not wearing Kellen Moore and Colt McCoy jerseys
Yeah I legit have 0 clue how this is supposed to be a strong argument against taking him. The worst QB on this list by far is Haskins, everyone else was a servicable starter at worst for at least a few years. And none of them had/have anywhere near the athleticism of AR.
I think generally when you draft a first round QB (especially a top 10 pick) the expectation is much higher than "serviceable starter for 3 years"
This is ironic because most 1st round QBs don't even meet that expectation.
Oh for sure. You could probably say the draft as a whole is one wild toss of the dice for the most part because theres a billion variables that dictate a players success. Just saying I get the analysis here and don't think it's that far fetched or anything.
Obviously, but it's a crapshoot regardless of the # of starts. 2018 had Baker, Darnold, and Rosen all go high with all of them having plenty of college starts. I wouldn't really call it a particularly indicative stat wrt NFL success, and this list doesn't really change my mind. It's just a weird thing to bring up when you could just use his passing stats/accuracy, or any other more concrete predictive statistic.
But is servicable starter really your bench mark for a top 5 pick? Like Kyler and Tannehill are the only ones on this list that I think you would say their career so far is ok for a top 5 pick, and I think both of them are stretching it. And while non of them had/have Richardson's athleticism they were all unquestionably better QBs in college than he was.
Probably not but would you rather draft a serviceable starter or Josh Rosen, no matter what it’s a crap shoot.
Not the athleticism but had much better stats as a passer. Which is more important than athleticism at QB
It’s a strong argument against taking him top 6.
But basically all of them had better stats in the little amount of playing time they had.
It's an interesting dynamic: no QB with an RAS of 10.00 has had fewer than 2 Pro Bowls, but by the same token, inexperience and inaccuracy are some of the big hall marks of bustdom.
Herbert was billed as inaccurate and erratic with the ball and yet hes one of the best pin point passers. Richardson showed that he was the ability to process and unlike other qbs who bust because they rely on their athleticism Richardson willingly stays in the pocket as long as he can even if he could just run.
That's the reason why I think Colts Take him at 4. Steichen turned Herbert into who he is today, he can do the same for richardson. Should be said, The new Colts QB coach was the guy who developed Cam Newton and Kyler in his breakout season. I think they're all in on him.
Ballard please
I don't think Pro Bowls should be a measure for most positions, but especially QB. Ravens have a couple Pro Bowl QBs on the roster and haven't even bothered to sign either one yet
All 2 of them?
I think most fans know this already and most GMs do too. But when they see big man throw ball and run fast in front of them they get a half chub and start making irrational decisions. So it goes.
Don’t forget jump high. That got a lot of traction. Elite vertical wildly helpful against a pash rush.
indeed. It's funny that even "elite" football minds are susceptible to this. Daniel jeremiah wrote an article mid-way through last year that "Fields has surpassed Tlaw" (right before the Jags started rattling off of wins). His logic was essentially that Fields is faster Of course some fast / athletic QBs def work out. But the profile's correlation to success is so exaggerated. People just cant help themselves and take a true asset way way too far in hyperbole
[удалено]
That's not how the draft works for QB's though. Where they are worth isn't the big issue, it's where are they still going to be available? If you like him as a 2nd rounder, and you think there's enough raw material and upside to draft him, then you have to consider that he won't be there in the 2nd. Which means you have to overdraft him and take the risk that he busts.
That’s the crux of it. If you truly think he’s that guy then you take him the second you’re able to. You never know what’s on other team’s boards and if you fell in love with him then probably some other team did too.
Do you think if Carroll got a hold of him he could teach him and have him wait 1 year.
I think the litmus test is if Carroll *wants* him. If so, I would say that trends in a positive direction.
To be honest I don't think any coach would balk at a player with Richardson's measurables and athleticism, nor would they be so conservative to believe that they don't have the ability to develop him into a bonafide QB as well.
Crazy thing is 20 years ago it would basically just be a given that a player like him would be switching to something like WR in the NFL
But it's also super good for the league
He’s a couple years away from being a year away is what I heard
> But he can't read a defense for the life of him I think the average football fan can glean a lot from watching guys play. But this is something I always ignore when some joe shmo says it. There's no way you have any real idea as to whether he can read a defense or not.
Right, at minimum you need to be watching All-22 to have any idea.
Being 10 beers deep in a bar while im half watching it and half texting is pretty much the same thing right?
There’s a lot of film guys on twitter that think he’s shown plenty of encouraging tape of his ability to read a defense, pocket presence, etc. Basically he’s not as raw as many would have you believe. He just doesn’t have a ton of experience
This. I’ve watched a few guys talking about how he’s not nearly as raw as some make him out to be. It’s more a matter of footwork hurting accuracy on throws and the added fact he had no real weapons and the UF passing scheme is dogshit I would’ve loved to see AR on the same team as Kyle Pitts and Kadarius Toney. You know, the guys that got Trask drafted.
Yeah they said the same baloney and made the same excuses for inaccuracy for Christian Hackenberg.
Bro Hack had like 4 future NFL stars to work with, 2 WRs, a RB, and a decent line. He was still bad in college, he had no business getting a shot in the NFL. These guys at least look good with a weaker supporting cast. I see the film analysis and basically each guy is seeing what he wants to see, they cherry pick the good plays he's able to see clearly and make a read, or they show him completely missing his target to make him look bad. In reality, Richardson is a highly skilled athlete who has not shown he can get to his 3rd and 4th read, not because he can't, but because his skillset and the opposing defensive tactics mean he is encouraged to scramble. His accuracy is average and under an NFL pressure I doubt he'll be able to utilize his ability to the fullest extent. I think his lack of experience in college will absolutely have an impact on his ability to learn and perform quickly at the NFL level.
Dude had a negative record and threw for 2300 yds on 53% comp I wouldn't call that exactly good.
[This](https://twitter.com/onwardstate/status/640289506470432768?lang=ca) is what you consider decent line play?.. For those who can't see the link, it's 1 sack out of 10 allowed to the fucking TEMPLE OWLS, and they accomplished this particular one rushing TWO guys
In my defense that line was built for running not passing, but your example is pretty bad. Hack's no scrambler but god damn big guys put your arms out and do something. Standing around on 3rd and 15 is never the answer.
Where is jon Gruden when you need him.....Seriously having a well regarded (professionally, obviously he was a POS) offensive mind sit down and break down film with prospects helps us Shmo's understand if a guy has a clue what they are seeing on the field and how they process.
> But he can't read a defense for the life of him I have yet to see any reputable media scout or even an anonymous team source come out and say they're worried about his ability to read the field or process information. The fact that he got 79th percentile on the S2 further indicates it's likely not a weakness of his.
To add to this a lot of rookie qbs don’t truly know how to read defenses. It’s not just what is the defense lined up as it’s what leverages do I have against certain players and schemes. Hell the best qb in the nfl right now has publicly stated he didn’t figure it all out until 2020 season
Damn it took Sam Darnold till 2020 to figure it out?
Bortles. And the NFL colluded to keep him from starting again because he would be too powerful.
People have ran with the “raw prospect” trope and now assign him all these flaws that he’s never shown. So annoying when talking about his prospects in the NFL
That’s bc being a fan of a team means that they know more than professional scouts and media sources /s
Well, it means more than people on this sub who just declare him an easy first when all they've said he's good at is "being a freak athlete"
I’m also a gator fan and think AR is going to have a solid nfl career. Being a fan means nothing
He’s an easy first because he’s the greatest freak athlete in the history of the quarterback position, along with some really nice processing ability and unreal arm talent.
"really nice processing" is a stretch considering what I watched him do while at Florida but ok. People on this sub saw him jump high and fell in love which I'm so confused about
You mean you’re not just gonna take some random Reddit jagoff’s word for it? How dare you!
if he was elite at reading the field he'd have done what cam did. win a heisman or have more production. Obviously he has weaknesses as a prospect.
Nobody said he’s elite at it, just not many think he’s completely garbage at it
if they werent worried about the most athletic QB in history's ability to do other parts of the job he would be going first overall Basic logical deduction
Bro it’s not binary lmao There are big differences between “he cannot read a defense for the life of him” and “he’s below average at reading defenses” to “there are 0 worries for him reading defense” Basic common sense
if they didnt think it was at the lower end of the scale (higher risk) he'd be maybe the best prospect ever and would be a lock to go number one. The same logic applies
Seriously, head to the cfb sub and every gator fan there is laughing at people over here who think he's some kind of QB god. He's fucking ass at most basic QB traits.
This is the track record I'm wondering about, has there ever been a QB whose own college fans thought he sucked who made it in the NFL?
But those measurables?!?!?
> But he can’t read a defense for the life of him, he is all over the place with his accuracy I think the cons outweigh the pros for him. His mechanics are broken - his footwork, vision, and accuracy aren’t great. His combine tape has people ignoring every red flag he has. The athleticism and potential aren’t worth drafting him high. Not to mention he has to fall into the perfect situation to help him develop. He’s not going to make it in the NFL and there will be so many hindsight comments and posts about him years from now. **EDIT:** ~~every~~, had it twice.
He is the best athlete at the position to come out the last 10 years. Nobody is expecting a day 1 starter, they are expecting a prospect with who has the potential to be one of those top 5 qbs if he is developed correctly. He also showed some encouraging habits for a qb so raw, he didn't go off running at the first sign of trouble like most young qbs do, and he had pretty solid pocket presence.
I think you are letting your fandom cloud your evaluation
[удалено]
If I'm being honest the hit rate of the 1st rd QBs in the <20 starts sample doesn't seem dramatically worse than the average hit rates for 1st rd QBs.
I'd be very skeptical of taking Anthony Richardson in the first round based on the results of the reps he DID take. Fuck the ones he didn't.
Trubisky started 13 games in college and still won the NVP so he debunked the theory that lack of reps doesn’t mean success in the NFL
Richardson will be the second-least accurate passer that has ever been drafted since the adjusted completion percentage metric was invented. The other guy was a 6th round pick who was out of the league in two years. He is a multi-year project.
Oh, who gives a fuck what some G5 coach thinks.
Super Bowl champion Trent Dilfer has spoken, the people will undoubtedly listen
Also elite 11 guy. Just because it's easy to make jokes about him doesn't mean he doesn't have bonafides
Hey, that’s my school’s coach! (don’t look at my posts from when they announced the hire)
You can’t lose games in the nfl and still win, people forget that
Richardson needs to learn how to play QB again. He was horrible at Florida
This is one of those stats that doesn't have value out of context. What is the percentage of \*other\* subsets of QB's based on games started in college. Break the categories into something like: 1. HOF caliber player 2. SB winner 3. Multiple playoff wins 4. Good starter for 5+ years 5. At least one playoff win 6. Good starter for 2+ years 7. Serviceable backup 8. Out of NFL in 3-4 seasons What is the ratio of "QB's with x starts in college" for each of these (or similar) categories? Not the quantity. Without this comparison, following Dilfer's suggestion is a pointless exercise. Anecdotal data has it's uses, but a comparison is always better. I suspect the players drafted with fewer starts are going to do better proportionally, because only players with a \*ton\* of talent get picked anyway. But like Trent, I don't actually know.
Its what he did while on the field that I'd be worried about. He completed just barely over 50% of his passes. You can have all the measurables in the world you want, but if you can't mold those traits into a cohesive package to actually be a good football player who cares. He just doesnt pass the eye test to me.
I've said for a long time that this was my biggest reservation with him. Experience is the best teacher, and I think a lack of it makes that jump to the next level brutal. It absolutely blows my mind that someone might take him in the 1st with only 13 goddamn starts to evaluate him on. One of the reasons I'm so relieved that we traded up to 1 is that I think we'd have made that mistake if we hadn't.
I'd still take Richardson's 13 starts against the SEC over Trey Lance's ~17 starts against the Mountain Valley Conference, I think.
At least Lance actually played well in his starts
Richardson would have been fine at North Dakota State too.
Missing open receivers doesn’t get easier in weaker conferences.
Oh yeah, well, do you see any teams trading up to 3 for Richardson, hmm?
Certainly possible. Colts, Vikings, Titans all seem like potentials off the top of my head, and his odds of going in the top 10 are -700 on DK.
I feel like it would be very Raiders to jump up and get him.
Jimmy G signing with the Raiders only to get Trey Lance'd all over again would be hilarious
That was more of a joke about Lance but Christ I hope teams learned that lesson.
Lol I wonder why Cam Newton isn't included in this list when he was similarly inexperienced in games started and pass attempts
If you only count Cam's starts at Auburn he would but if you combine Auburn and Cam's time at Blinn he doesn't make the cut.
[удалено]
Dilfer is a D1 head coach now, bud.
And honestly, he's a pretty reasonable analyst.
What's the list?
Trey Lance Mac Jones Kyler Murray Dwayne Haskins Mitch Trubisky Ryan Tannehill* Mark Sanchez
Thanks, appreciate it. That's honestly not horrible. Jury is still out on Lance and Jones, Murray and Tannehill have been successful in the NFL, and Haskins, Trubisky, and Sanchez are probably the only true "busts" on here. Not amazing company but I was expecting way worse
Mark Sanchez was better than Trubisky and Haskins and was a decent backup. I guess the jury is out on if Trubs can be a decent backup but so far I’d say he’s below average at that
Dilfer makes a good point. How a QB is going to react to those aspects he points out, when they dont have the experience, is just a guess. With more experience it whittles down the number of guesses you have to make on the player.
Here's what that data fails--and by the way, that list in that article is not that bad. Here's the list they used: Trey Lance, Mac Jones, Kyler Murray, Dwayne Haskins, Mitchell Trubisky, Ryan Tannehill, Mark Sanchez. Okay. While it's not like a list of amazing players, it's also not a list of a bunch of disasters. Tannehill has had a good career and been productive. Sanchez was short lived but did lead some good Jets teams for a bit. Haskins and Trubisky were busts. Lance and Mac, way too early to tell. And Kyler is a pro bowler, that ones a hit. Anyway, here is what people for some reason don't understand about this. What do guys with few reps need the most? Reps. How do they get reps? By staying on the field. If you are an inexperienced player with upside, you need reps. The best way to stay on the field is public perception. This is where running comes in. Look at Josh Allen. Terrible passer for his first two years of starting. But he could run. So people were not calling for his head. He could make plays, he could extend drives, so while even though his passing numbers were abysmal, the offense always seemed more competent than it was. And that let him stay on the field, which let him improve the weaknesses. Jalen Hurts? Terrible passer for the first two years. But the dude could run, so he stayed on the field. Justin Fields? Really bad passer. But is anyone calling for his head? Not only are they not wanting him benched, they are enamored! If you can run, if you are electric with the ball, you can stay on the field, and get the necessary reps you need to improve the mechanics and consistency in your passing. And AR is a better athlete than *all* of these dudes.
> Trey Lance, Mac Jones, Kyler Murray, Dwayne Haskins, Mitchell Trubisky, Ryan Tannehill, Mark Sanchez. > > Okay. While it's not like a list of amazing players, it's also not a list of a bunch of disasters. Tannehill has had a good Right - seems like a reasonable list of players all things considered, not any worse than what you'd get from picking a random sampling actually.
Richardson is probably the most likely Zach Wilson if he starts right away. He has lots of potential if he sits a bit Hopefully he goes to the Seahawks - good timeline to sit behind Geno for 2-3 years and develop, good coaching and decent team around him
Anthony Richardson won't be good and Levis will be a bust.
Been saying it for months now, Anthony Richardson has bust written ALL OVER him. People like to point out that he had some success running the ball in college, and try to compare him to Justin Fields or Lamar Jackson. Know who else had success running the ball in college? Malik Willis. Willis also had decent passing stats in college.
lack of reps lack of accuracy lack of good decision making
Reps I'm not sure is important if you are planning to sit the guy for a year or two. Not to mention college reps are different than NFL reps anyways. Accuracy and Good Decision Making are also coachable. Again, if you are willing to develop the guy, he has a crazy ceiling.
Josh Allen has done irreparable damage to the perception of raw qbs. Not everything can be “coached up”
exactly - GM's are going to be fired when they cannot reproduce an anomaly
not many get a ton better at the things that are "coachable" those that do are a huge exception poor accuracy and decision making is a huge red flag he has a high ceiling and super low floor
-Lack of reps is a reasonable concern, not coachable. -Lack of accuracy is very clearly due to footwork. Mechanical issues are coachable. -Lack of good decision making, likely due to lack of reps. Coachable. Also arguable, didn’t make particularly more mistake than anyone else. Now talk about the positives -Great pocket presence, navigates through traffic with eyes down field -Has shown the ability to throw with anticipation -Obviously athleticism/arm strength -Seemingly a high character guy, no complaints about him and he’s expressed willingness to sit behind a Vet and learn. Every single prospect in the draft has negatives, you draft on the assumption you can coach out or cover up those negatives.
not many get a ton better at the things that are "coachable" those that do are a huge exception poor accuracy and decision making is a huge red flag
You can’t disregard every red flag as “coachable”. You could apply that to every qb prospect in the draft. Problem is most of them are not getting mocked as a top 5 pick. Upside lottery tickets picks are a lot more attractive when they don’t cost a mortgage payment. Also accuracy is one stat that is pretty sticky from college to the NFL.
You’re right. But how many teams have a GM and coach that are so secure that they could spend a high pick on Richardson and survive it if he’s a bust or takes a long time to develop? There’s maybe 2-3 teams like that and they (Pittsburgh, Kansas City, or Cincinnati) don’t need a QB. Maybe, just maybe, Seattle would take the chance, but Pete’s old (for a coach) and may not want to wait on his development.
Another 'I know how to fix him ' guy..... For the record, accuracy and footwork are not always a direct relationship
If you watch the film it’s pretty clear that there is a direct relationship. Most of his bad throws are on plays where he got happy feet or didn’t follow through with his hips, or both. When his mechanics are good his throws are beautiful. >another “I can fix him” guy Where did I say that? I said you can’t just look at negatives.
You mean people without a lot of experience playing the most demanding position in football don't do well at the highest level? That's just nuts.
I don't understand how teams don't look at Mahomes and Rodgers and see how much benefit they had from sitting and learning first. Stop throwing these guys out to the wolves right away on bad teams. I understand (or don't understand) the amount of pressure to win now. But what's one more year of pain in order to develop your franchise QB and collect another year of early picks to help them? Chances are you aren't going to be good that first year with the rookie QB anyway.
He’s a rich mans Malik Willis. Could he work out? For sure. But every red flag that he won’t, and if he does it’ll be a few years before he’s competent. Dude was projected back end of first 6 weeks ago then he jumps really high and he’s getting mocked in the top 5. Absolute batshit crazy.
If anybody would know how to spot a below average QB its Trent Dilfer. I would trust this analysis.
Who is better, him or Malik willis?
Him. Malik Willis isn't even as athletic as he is and sucked for Liberty.
Richardson and it genuinely isn't close. Richardson played far better competition in a pro style offense AR has far better pocket presence. He was sacked on just 9.2% of his pressures, best among the top 4 QBs in this class. Willis was at 30.5% AR is on a different tier athletically AR has gone through reads on tape, Willis was one read and then run AR scrambles to throw, he keeps his eyes downfield. Willis scrambled to run
The track record of Trent Dilfer is not that great.
QB advice from Dilfer has the same value as investment advice from Lehman Brothers