Week 5 Discussion Thread

[cjonesfan921]

Re: Week 5 Discussion Thread

I just never liked the match up against this team... they're so fundamentally sound as well as being insanely talented.

Cowboys need to play a near perfect game to have a chance.

Time to map out ways to avoid them in January.

[Sportsforever]

Re: Week 5 Discussion Thread

It is amazing to me that NFL teams give up a kings ransom every year to try and find the next franchise QB and a guy like Purdy could have been had by any team for nothing. He looks like what every team wants their young QB to be; makes the right read, super accurate, and limits mistakes.



Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[cjonesfan921]

Re: Week 5 Discussion Thread

It is amazing to me that NFL teams give up a kings ransom every year to try and find the next franchise QB and a guy like Purdy could have been had by any team for nothing. He looks like what every team wants their young QB to be; makes the right read, super accurate, and limits mistakes.



Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

I think we have to put some value to the situations they are drafted in, as well.

This team didn't ask for a lot early out of Brock, but this year, he is proving he is absolutely an NFL QB, and a very good one so far.

[Sportsforever]

Re: Week 5 Discussion Thread

I think we have to put some value to the situations they are drafted in, as well.



This team didn't ask for a lot early out of Brock, but this year, he is proving he is absolutely an NFL QB, and a very good one so far.

Maybe that should be a clue for teams; are they putting too much on a top draft pick too early? When I was growing up, it didn’t matter where you were drafted, you were going to hold a clipboard for a few years. I don’t think we need to go back to that, but we keep chewing up/spitting out QBs because they are thrown to the wolves.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[reyes the roof]

Re: Week 5 Discussion Thread

Probably time to call it a night for Dak

[cjonesfan921]

Re: Week 5 Discussion Thread

Trey Lance time?

[Jr.]

Re: Week 5 Discussion Thread

Maybe that should be a clue for teams; are they putting too much on a top draft pick too early? When I was growing up, it didn’t matter where you were drafted, you were going to hold a clipboard for a few years. I don’t think we need to go back to that, but we keep chewing up/spitting out QBs because they are thrown to the wolves.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

Has the number of successful QBs who have sat really been that much better? Or do we overinflate it because it's high draft picks who start early.

I don't see people talking about the mid-round picks who sat for years and still were unsuccessful or never even got a chance to start because they were never good enough.

Maybe I'm wrong with the actual data, but it seems like the success rate is about the same whether you start early or sit for a while.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Operation Sports mobile app

[DamnYanks2]

Re: Week 5 Discussion Thread

It is amazing to me that NFL teams give up a kings ransom every year to try and find the next franchise QB and a guy like Purdy could have been had by any team for nothing. He looks like what every team wants their young QB to be; makes the right read, super accurate, and limits mistakes.



Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

Yea but it's one of those things that have just worked out. Purdy didn't exactly dominate in college. He didn't stand out. It's just been a hand and glove fit.

And we may not even talk about Purdy if he ended up in Carolina. But he's been gifted the keys to a Ferrari. And he hasn't crashed it. Can't say the same with Jimmy G he crashed it. And Trey Lance wasn't ready. So you just gotta give Purdy and everybody credit.

Health is the only thing standing in this team's way imo. Eagles and Chiefs are great but aren't nearly as loaded as this group.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Sportsforever]

Re: Week 5 Discussion Thread

Has the number of successful QBs who have sat really been that much better? Or do we overinflate it because it's high draft picks who start early.

I don't see people talking about the mid-round picks who sat for years and still were unsuccessful or never even got a chance to start because they were never good enough.

Maybe I'm wrong with the actual data, but it seems like the success rate is about the same whether you start early or sit for a while.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Operation Sports mobile app

I don’t have the data, but if what you said is true that is actually an argument to sit guys and let them develop, IMO. A player drafted high has the talent/physical tools that a mid round or later doesn’t. If those guys have the same success rate as a higher draft pick after sitting, that’s says something.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[Jr.]

Re: Week 5 Discussion Thread

I don’t have the data, but if what you said is true that is actually an argument to sit guys and let them develop, IMO. A player drafted high has the talent/physical tools that a mid round or later doesn’t. If those guys have the same success rate as a higher draft pick after sitting, that’s says something.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

No I'm saying the opposite. I think guys are just as likely to succeed whether they start early or sit. I think we overinflate the fail rate of early starters compared to those who sit because the early starters are all high picks. There's more attention on them. I don't think guys that sit are more likely to be successful. I think if they're successful, they likely would've been successful starting early, too. The guys that fail early, likely would've failed if they sat for a while too.

Again no one talks about all the guys that sat for however long and were still unsuccessful.

Of course there's no way to prove that

Sent from my SM-G970U using Operation Sports mobile app

[Sportsforever]

Re: Week 5 Discussion Thread

No I'm saying the opposite. I think guys are just as likely to succeed whether they start early or sit. I think we overinflate the fail rate of early starters compared to those who sit because the early starters are all high picks. There's more attention on them. I don't think guys that sit are more likely to be successful. I think if they're successful, they likely would've been successful starting early, too. The guys that fail early, likely would've failed if they sat for a while too.

Again no one talks about all the guys that sat for however long and were still unsuccessful.

Of course there's no way to prove that

Sent from my SM-G970U using Operation Sports mobile app

To clarify, I am not advocating for sitting players. I’m saying maybe teams need to relook at how much they expect from a Week 1 rookie. It seems that a guy like Purdy or Brady aren’t expected to do much except be a game manger while top draft picks are expected to be Dan Marino or John Elway right away.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[jeebs9]

Re: Week 5 Discussion Thread

Maybe it’s time to recognize Purdy is legit.

Maybe it's time for MVP talk? [emoji23]

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Re: Week 5 Discussion Thread

There's no inherent benefit to "sitting" a guy IMO unless you have extremely specific things you need to him to work on that would benefit from practice reps. Like, some QBs come into the NFL having never taken a snap from under center or even called a play in the huddle. Sit the guy until he can field the snap, do his footwork properly, learn how an offense is timed by his feet, turn his back to the defense on play action, etc. You also don't want to completely force a guy *not* to do what made him successful, because that's gonna foster distrust if he doesn't see the improvement.



But some things, like a QB taking his eyes off the wideouts when he gets pressured, seem to be learned with live bullets or not at all. If anything, the keys seem to be having a guy with the self-awareness to know his own faults and work on them, a scouting staff that has a clear-eyed take on what a guy can do, and a coaching staff stable enough to make a plan and see it through. Kyle Shanahan seems to know exactly what he wants in a QB, and when he stepped outside that with Lance, he was secure enough to pull the plug when it wasn't working.

[ProfessaPackMan]

Week 5 Discussion Thread

^Don’t know about the no benefit part but speaking for us, it’s worked once for us already and so far, looks like it might work again.

But that ultimately depends on your team and type of talent/coaching in place because it’s definitely not something every team can and should do.

It is amazing to me that NFL teams give up a kings ransom every year to try and find the next franchise QB and a guy like Purdy could have been had by any team for nothing. He looks like what every team wants their young QB to be; makes the right read, super accurate, and limits mistakes.



Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

Isn’t this by definition, a game manager then?

[Sportsforever]

Re: Week 5 Discussion Thread

Isn’t this by definition, a game manager then?

You could probably say that and be accurate; maybe it has to do more with team make up than the QB. For example, a team with a solid running game and killer defense doesn’t need the QB to do a lot. I remember that Brady was considered a game manager for the first 4-5 years of his career; it wasn’t until he had all those weapons on the 2007 team that the narrative changed.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports