Darnold on the block?

[Maniac]

Originally Posted by Chaka

You are fudging here. The Brees and Favre years you reference were actually their 4th years in the league. You skip over their first years just because they didn't play much. If you skip games they didn't play, then Darnold is still in his second year - he's missed 8 games so far. So to be fair, here's a comparison of their second years:

Brees - threw for 2108 yards, 11 TDs against 15 INTs
Tannehill - threw for 3912 yards, 24 TDs against 17 INTs
Favre - threw for 3303 yards, 19 TDs against 24 INTs
Moon - threw for 2709 yards,, 15 TDs against 19 INTs

Incidentally, you omitted Warren Moon from your analysis. In his third year, he threw for 3489 yards, with 13 TDs and a league-leading 26 INTs. He was also 30 by then, so he was probably not someone who appeared to have a bright future at the time.

Ultimately, though, the point is that these players all underperformed at first, but later hit their stride - most of them with heir second team I'd also venture a guess based upon the W-L records of their teams during their first few years, that none of these guys had supporting players as dismally bad as Darnold does (Brees 2nd full year his team went 2-9 while he was QB, so maybe that year is close).

I'm not fudging, I clearly stated 3rd year starting, because the experience starting is what is important. I showed their 3rd year starting. This is Darnold's 3rd year starting. It's on equal footing.

Moon did develop late. He's one of the rare cases. I certainly wouldn't give up high draft picks on the hopes that Darnold is another case where he beats the statistical odds against that happening. If we do and he ends up being a shitty QB for us for several years, then it's going to suck continuing down that path of QB hell.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by Maniac

I'm not fudging, I clearly stated 3rd year starting, because the experience starting is what is important. I showed their 3rd year starting. This is Darnold's 3rd year starting. It's on equal footing.

Moon did develop late. He's one of the rare cases. I certainly wouldn't give up high draft picks on the hopes that Darnold is another case where he beats the statistical odds against that happening. If we do and he ends up being a shitty QB for us for several years, then it's going to suck continuing down that path of QB hell.

I won’t grind the details of the two analyses since sometimes people don’t like that so much, but suffice it to say I disagree that you’re providing a true apples-to-apples comparison. I’ll add that Darnold’s stats last year (his 2nd, even under your method) compare very favorably with those other guys - he threw for 3,024 yards with 19 TD and 13 INTs, and we are (again, under your methodology) still only six games into his third year so it makes it difficult to compare a third year for this reason as well.

As to your point about the risks involved, you are of course absolutely correct that it would be risky. But here’s the thing – the rest of our team is pretty good, so I doubt we’ll be picking in the first half of the first round in the near future, so by necessity we have to explore some other option to get a quality QB. That means either signing a free agent with issues, taking a stab at a developmental QB in the draft that will take a year or two (or more) to be ready, or trading for an experienced but undervalued QB from another team. To me, Darnold seems to check a number of boxes for this latter option, so he might be worth gambling a high pick on for a team like the Colts.

What better solution do you see other than playing Eason, since no one here really knows how well he’s developing at this point? If Eason is lighting things up, then all bets are off and of course we should go that route, but I don’t know this to be the case currently.

[albany ed]

Originally Posted by Maniac

They were that age mainly because they sat behind established starters, but the experience is what matters. If you are in the 3rd year and you are as bad in your 3rd year as you are as a rookie, then the chances of that person panning out as a franchise QB are slim.

If they want to get him as a backup, that's fine. Maybe he defies those slim odds, but I wouldn't put the franchise in his hands and expect it. If we do that, we may just waste more years in QB hell.

I agree, experience does count. The reason for the age difference is the three afore mentioned QBs had 4 years of starting experience in College. Darnold had 2. Then, he was pressed into starting immediately for a very shitty team. He may end up being a bust, but I really don't think playing at 20 years old for the Jets is the best way to gain the experience necessary to flourish. QB is a leadership position, and add to that difficulty, playing under the HUGE microscope of NYC media at such a young age. That's not the same as getting a year on the bench before taking over the reins as a starter.

[Maniac]

Originally Posted by Chaka

I won’t grind the details of the two analyses since sometimes people don’t like that so much, but suffice it to say I disagree that you’re providing a true apples-to-apples comparison. I’ll add that Darnold’s stats last year (his 2nd, even under your method) compare very favorably with those other guys - he threw for 3,024 yards with 19 TD and 13 INTs, and we are (again, under your methodology) still only six games into his third year so it makes it difficult to compare a third year for this reason as well.

As to your point about the risks involved, you are of course absolutely correct that it would be risky. But here’s the thing – the rest of our team is pretty good, so I doubt we’ll be picking in the first half of the first round in the near future, so by necessity we have to explore some other option to get a quality QB. That means either signing a free agent with issues, taking a stab at a developmental QB in the draft that will take a year or two (or more) to be ready, or trading for an experienced but undervalued QB from another team. To me, Darnold seems to check a number of boxes for this latter option, so he might be worth gambling a high pick on for a team like the Colts.

What better solution do you see other than playing Eason, since no one here really knows how well he’s developing at this point? If Eason is lighting things up, then all bets are off and of course we should go that route, but I don’t know this to be the case currently.

Yes, this is still year 3 for Darnold. He's currently on pace for 12 TD's and 16 INT's for this year.

Multiple mocks have the Colts taking Trey Lance in the draft. I would rather use a draft pick on him than give up a high pick for Darnold.

Either way, we'll see what Ballard does soon.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by Maniac

Yes, this is still year 3 for Darnold. He's currently on pace for 12 TD's and 16 INT's for this year.

Multiple mocks have the Colts taking Trey Lance in the draft. I would rather use a draft pick on him than give up a high pick for Darnold.

Either way, we'll see what Ballard does soon.

The draft is still a long way away, so it’s hard to predict who will be available to pick (much less where we will be picking). Last draft, Jordan Love was the only QB picked late in round 1, and from what I understand he is very raw and a very long way from taking over for Aaron Rodgers. So if we take a QB like that, then we’ll be playing with Rivers or someone else for the immediate future. Meanwhile, the bill will be coming due on all of the good young players we’ve been drafting, so at some point difficult choices will need to be made while we wait for such a QB to develop.

[Maniac]

Originally Posted by Chaka

The draft is still a long way away, so it’s hard to predict who will be available to pick (much less where we will be picking). Last draft, Jordan Love was the only QB picked late in round 1, and from what I understand he is very raw and a very long way from taking over for Aaron Rodgers. So if we take a QB like that, then we’ll be playing with Rivers or someone else for the immediate future. Meanwhile, the bill will be coming due on all of the good young players we’ve been drafting, so at some point difficult choices will need to be made while we wait for such a QB to develop.

yep, that's what happens when we are in QB hell like we currently are. We were spoiled to have great QB play for so long.

[Chaka]

Let me add a few other guys that will help make my point

The hated John Elway:
Year 2: 2598 passing yards, 18 TDs, 15 INTs
Year 3: 3,891 passing yards, 22 TDs, 23 INTs

Troy Aikman
Year 2: 2,579 passing yards, 11 TDs, 18 INTs
Year 3: 2,754 passing yards, 11 TDs, 10 INTs

Steve Young
Year 2: 2,282 passing yards, 8 TDs, 13 INTs (Tampa Bay)
Year 3: 570 passing yards, 10 TDs, 0 INTs (traded to SF, behind Montana)

In fact, the more I look the more it seems to be kind of the norm for a QB to suffer through some adversity in his first few years before finally emerging as a legit star.

[albany ed]

This has turned into an interesting debate. Good points made by all.

[Maniac]

Originally Posted by Chaka

Let me add a few other guys that will help make my point

The hated John Elway:
Year 2: 2598 passing yards, 18 TDs, 15 INTs
Year 3: 3,891 passing yards, 22 TDs, 23 INTs

Troy Aikman
Year 2: 2,579 passing yards, 11 TDs, 18 INTs
Year 3: 2,754 passing yards, 11 TDs, 10 INTs

Steve Young
Year 2: 2,282 passing yards, 8 TDs, 13 INTs (Tampa Bay)
Year 3: 570 passing yards, 10 TDs, 0 INTs (traded to SF, behind Montana)

In fact, the more I look the more it seems to be kind of the norm for a QB to suffer through some adversity in his first few years before finally emerging as a legit star.

Elways numbers were good in his 3rd year. almost 4000 yards and 22 TD's, just high INT's. They also had a record of 12-2 and 11-5 in his 2nd and 3rd years.

Aikman is a poor choice. He never was a big stats QB. He had Emmitt. He only had one season where he threw for over 20 TD's.

Young sitting behind Montana is also a poor example. He also only played in 5 games his first year in Tampa. His second year in Tampa he also ran for 425 yards and 5 TD's in addition to his passing. After that he sat behind Montana and played in spot duty.

One thing in Darnold's favor though to be fair is that he only played in 13 games in each of his first two years.

[albany ed]

Originally Posted by omahacolt

I would give up a 2nd and a future 4th.

What say you guys

This was the post that started this thread. Darnold would be a risk, but IMO, if this is what it took to get him, it's a risk worth taking.