I think the reason he's saying it is the same reason it wouldn't be said in other places, organizational competence and coaching competence.I was just coming to post the same thing. He knows who pulls the strings in the organization, and it's not Urban Meyer. This is shit that Lebron James and Aaron Rodgers pull when they're in their 30s. Not as a rookie.
I'm positive this is his way of trying to be a leader, but thats because he's 22 and doesn't know anything. I'm also positive this shows the amount of respect he has for Meyer. If Lawrence was in New England - and it could be a bunch of organizations, but let's use BB as the barometer - is there a snowflakes chance in hell that these words come out of his mouth?
Any excuse to post this video (it's right up there with the The Day Bill Belichick Coached the Jets video)People need to stop disrespecting the absolute perfection of the butt fumble by comparing every bad Jets play to it. Watch the butt fumble again, it was just an exquisite display of ridiculous ineptitude. ...
Bad play by Wilson but nothing like the butt fumble.
I'm not sure this is actually true, at least if we focus on QBs who played most of their career in the 21st century with the more open passing game.I'd worry that the Jaguars are absolutely ruining Lawrence, but the reality is, we've seen lots of QBs that turn out really good have awful rookie seasons. So they aren't exactly sealing his fate or anything, but yikes this is....uncomfortably bad for him.
If the Pats were offered Lawrence straight up for Mac Jones, do you think Belichick would do it?I'm not sure this is actually true, at least if we focus on QBs who played most of their career in the 21st century with the more open passing game.
There are a number of QBs who had fairly awful rookie seasons who turned out pretty good (like a league average QB) - Eli Manning, Ryan Tannehill, Alex Smith, Carson Wentz are examples.
There are also definitely QBs who had up and down rookie seasons who turned out really good (if we consider that a top 10 QB for a stretch of years) - like Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck.
I don't think there are many QBs who have been as bad as Lawrence (or Fields or Wilson for that matter) and turned out to be really good and the cases that exist were somewhat unusual circumstances. Josh Allen was terrible, but he is a bit of a unique case since he didn't play D1 football. Donovan McNabb was also really bad, but he only started six games so he didn't really get a chance to improve like a guy starting most of the year.
I definitely wouldn't write off Lawrence, Fields, or Wilson but at this point I think we have to adjust our priors a bit and say that all of these guys are significant underdogs to ever be really good QBs (although you can't rule it out). Lawrence is the one I'd still be most optimistic about, simply because I think he has the most complete set of tools for the NFL game among the group.
I don't have a strong feeling either way on this. Lawrence was one of the best QB prospects of the last 5-10 years so he is a bit unusual, I don't think it would be a big debate with most other QBs who were highly drafted and had a year like he has had. In Lawrence's case, BB/Josh would be tempted by his tools and the idea that they could put him in a better position to succeed. But I think they'd watch every Lawrence throw this year a thousand times and it would give them some genuine pause. And they'd also be hesitant to go away from a guy like Mac who was seemingly built in a lab to conform to their expectations for how a QB should work and carry himself off the field.If the Pats were offered Lawrence straight up for Mac Jones, do you think Belichick would do it?
On the one hand, it's clear that Jones is already a solid NFL QB, and it's not clear that Lawrence is that or will be that. Jones seems to fit exactly what the Patriots want.
On the other hand, Lawrence was drafted first for a reason - he has much more in terms of tools than Mac does. And coming off his first year, there's still a lot of rookie contract left, and I bet BB and Josh would think they could absolutely "fix" Lawrence and unlock him in their system.
It's a really small sample overall though, there aren't that many really good QBsThese are the modern ones, with the borderline guys with ?.I'm not sure this is actually true, at least if we focus on QBs who played most of their career in the 21st century with the more open passing game.
I don't think there are many QBs who have been as bad as Lawrence (or Fields or Wilson for that matter) and turned out to be really good and the cases that exist were somewhat unusual circumstances. Josh Allen was terrible, but he is a bit of a unique case since he didn't play D1 football. Donovan McNabb was also really bad, but he only started six games so he didn't really get a chance to improve like a guy starting most of the year.
I definitely wouldn't write off Lawrence, Fields, or Wilson but at this point I think we have to adjust our priors a bit and say that all of these guys are significant underdogs to ever be really good QBs (although you can't rule it out). Lawrence is the one I'd still be most optimistic about, simply because I think he has the most complete set of tools for the NFL game among the group.
The fact that so many QBs don't play their rookie years definitely makes this harder.It's a really small sample overall though, there aren't that many really good QBsThese are the modern ones, with the borderline guys with ?.
Rodgers- didn't play as a rookie
Mahomes- didn't play as a rookie
Dak- good rookie
Lamar?- half season, pretty bad as a passer
Stafford- terrible in a partial rookie season
Wilson- good rookie
Ryan- good rookie
Cousins?- 1 game as a rookie
Allen?- Bad rookie
Watson- good rookie
Luck- pretty good rookie
Tannehill?- Bad rookie.
Mixed bag overall.
Goff comes to mind as someone who bounced back from a horrible rookie year to play decently, but he’s more in the Bortles category of being slightly above average at best, and best didn’t last very long.I'm not sure this is actually true, at least if we focus on QBs who played most of their career in the 21st century with the more open passing game.
There are a number of QBs who had fairly awful rookie seasons who turned out pretty good (like a league average QB) - Eli Manning, Ryan Tannehill, Alex Smith, Carson Wentz are examples.
There are also definitely QBs who had up and down rookie seasons who turned out really good (if we consider that a top 10 QB for a stretch of years) - like Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck.
I don't think there are many QBs who have been as bad as Lawrence (or Fields or Wilson for that matter) and turned out to be really good and the cases that exist were somewhat unusual circumstances. Josh Allen was terrible, but he is a bit of a unique case since he didn't play D1 football. Donovan McNabb was also really bad, but he only started six games so he didn't really get a chance to improve like a guy starting most of the year.
The number of guys who were awful as rookies and then just stayed bad is far far longer. Even if we're only thinking of pedigreed top half of the first round guys, you've got David Carr, Joey Harrington, Vince Young, Matt Leinart, Jamarcus Russell, Mark Sanchez, Blaine Gabbert, Christian Ponder, Blake Bortles, etc.
I definitely wouldn't write off Lawrence, Fields, or Wilson but at this point I think we have to adjust our priors a bit and say that all of these guys are significant underdogs to ever be really good QBs (although you can't rule it out). Lawrence is the one I'd still be most optimistic about, simply because I think he has the most complete set of tools for the NFL game among the group.
If the Pats were offered Lawrence straight up for Mac Jones, do you think Belichick would do it?
On the one hand, it's clear that Jones is already a solid NFL QB, and it's not clear that Lawrence is that or will be that. Jones seems to fit exactly what the Patriots want.
On the other hand, Lawrence was drafted first for a reason - he has much more in terms of tools than Mac does. And coming off his first year, there's still a lot of rookie contract left, and I bet BB and Josh would think they could absolutely "fix" Lawrence and unlock him in their system.
I agree it would be a very close call. Given that the Pats have now invested close to a year in Mac, and that one year of the cheap rookie deal is burned up (plus Mac making much less over the next 3-4 years), I’d lean no.I don't have a strong feeling either way on this. Lawrence was one of the best QB prospects of the last 5-10 years so he is a bit unusual, I don't think it would be a big debate with most other QBs who were highly drafted and had a year like he has had. In Lawrence's case, BB/Josh would be tempted by his tools and the idea that they could put him in a better position to succeed. But I think they'd watch every Lawrence throw this year a thousand times and it would give them some genuine pause. And they'd also be hesitant to go away from a guy like Mac who was seemingly built in a lab to conform to their expectations for how a QB should work and carry himself off the field.
Tossup for me in the end.
My point was, most QBs aren't really good, and the path to get there is pretty varied. Yes, more players who start bad stay bad, and more that start good stay good, but... I don't know that it's something you can really use to estimate what any individual is likely to do. Too varied a state of play, and way too much depends on things like.. supporting talent and coaching. I think it would be accurate to say that a QB who is terrible as a rookie is more likely to be bad overall than good, and a QB who is good as a rookie (though you're leaving out a lot of mediocre to bad guys who were pretty good as rookies like Jones, Young, Mariota, Mayfield, Kessler, etc.) is more likely to be decent, but if you're projecting who can be Really Good.. it's more mixed bag because the number of guys who can get there is small, and the combination of skills/talents you usually need is varied, so a guy with certain skills (say Allen with his big arm) can be bad as rookies and then become really good because the things that they struggled with improve and the things they had suddenly are more valuable.The fact that so many QBs don't play their rookie years definitely makes this harder.
But I think the list here is kind of off-base in two ways. First, its only current players (other than Luck). More importantly, the relevant sample isn't the group of really good QBs but the group of QBs who played substantial minutes their rookie year. And that's not huge but its not tiny either if we're thinking about the last two decades.
Out of that group, there just aren't many QBs who were truly awful as rookies and turned out to be really good. Allen having never played D1, McNabb in six starts, Stafford if we want to consider him a really good QB. Contrast that to the (very non-exhaustive) list of QBs who were awful as rookies and just stayed pretty bad that I put in my previous post.
In comparison, when you look at guys who were middling (Luck, Peyton) to good (Ben, Dak, Russ, Cam, Ryan, Watson, Murray, Herbert) their rookie year you unsurprisingly see a lot more guys who turned out to be really good or in a case like Herbert seems likely to turn out that way.
I don't think there is a real case for considering this a mixed bag. If anything, there seems to be a pretty strong - although obviously not determinative - relationship. Performing really poorly as a rookie is a bad sign for your future prospects as an NFL QB.
I'm in agreement with Cellar door. There's so few QBs that you would put into the great category that it's a really small sample size.The fact that so many QBs don't play their rookie years definitely makes this harder.
But I think the list here is kind of off-base in two ways. First, its only current players (other than Luck). More importantly, the relevant sample isn't the group of really good QBs but the group of QBs who played substantial minutes their rookie year. And that's not huge but its not tiny either if we're thinking about the last two decades.
Out of that group, there just aren't many QBs who were truly awful as rookies and turned out to be really good. Allen having never played D1, McNabb in six starts, Stafford if we want to consider him a really good QB. Contrast that to the (very non-exhaustive) list of QBs who were awful as rookies and just stayed pretty bad that I put in my previous post.
In comparison, when you look at guys who were middling (Luck, Peyton) to good (Ben, Dak, Russ, Cam, Ryan, Watson, Murray, Herbert) their rookie year you unsurprisingly see a lot more guys who turned out to be really good or in a case like Herbert seems likely to turn out that way.
I don't think there is a real case for considering this a mixed bag. If anything, there seems to be a pretty strong - although obviously not determinative - relationship. Performing really poorly as a rookie is a bad sign for your future prospects as an NFL QB.
Contextual factors can be huge and its true that becoming "really good" (whatever that means) is hard and unlikely in general.My point was, most QBs aren't really good, and the path to get there is pretty varied. Yes, more players who start bad stay bad, and more that start good stay good, but... I don't know that it's something you can really use to estimate what any individual is likely to do. Too varied a state of play, and way too much depends on things like.. supporting talent and coaching. I think it would be accurate to say that a QB who is terrible as a rookie is more likely to be bad overall than good, and a QB who is good as a rookie (though you're leaving out a lot of mediocre to bad guys who were pretty good as rookies like Jones, Young, Mariota, Mayfield, Kessler, etc.) is more likely to be decent, but if you're projecting who can be Really Good.. it's more mixed bag because the number of guys who can get there is small, and the combination of skills/talents you usually need is varied, so a guy with certain skills (say Allen with his big arm) can be bad as rookies and then become really good because the things that they struggled with improve and the things they had suddenly are more valuable.
Tannehill is one I think is interesting, he started out on teams with bad talent and bad coaches, he was pretty bad as a rookie, he became quite good with better support/coaching. Thing is not that many rookie QBs who are in bad situations get a chance to be in good ones soon enough.
Someone should probably let the University of Wyoming know they've been playing in the wrong division.d down rookie seasons who turned out really good (if we consider that a top 10 QB for a stretch of years) - like Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck.
I don't think there are many QBs who have been as bad as Lawrence (or Fields or Wilson for that matter) and turned out to be really good and the cases that exist were somewhat unusual circumstances. Josh Allen was terrible, but he is a bit of a unique case since he didn't play D1 football. Donovan McNabb was also really bad, but he only started six games so he didn't really get a chance to improve like a guy starting most of the year.
Yeah, brain fart there.Someone should probably let the University of Wyoming know they've been playing in the wrong division.
Sure. And note that some of the guys who sat didn't light things up when they first played, either. Drew Brees sat on a 5-11 team, was not good in Y2, terrible in Y3 (worse than Lawrence is now), and finally broke out in Y4. Carson Palmer (the #1 overall pick!) sat for a year and then put up a sub-5 ANY/A in year two before having a decent year 3.The fact that so many QBs don't play their rookie years definitely makes this harder.
I don't have the last two decades, but in the last one decade, prior to this year, I count only 21 QBs drafted in the top 16 who had 200 pass attempts as rookies; of those, 6 put up sub-5 ANY/As; 2 (Goff and Allen) went on to at least some degree of success, while they other 4 (Rosen, Manuel, Bortles, Haskins) did not. 1/3 is probably not dissimilar from the overall hit rate for these guys. (We also have 6 QBs with 6+ ANY/As; Herbert, Watson, and Baker I guess are hits while Mariota, Winston, and RGIII are misses).Contextual factors can be huge and its true that becoming "really good" (whatever that means) is hard and unlikely in general.
But I think its possible to go overboard about context as well, to the point that we're just ignoring data on performance. If in the last two decades there have been like 20-25 QBs (I'm guesstimating, not counting) who were drafted in the top half of the first round, started 10+ games as rookies, and been as bad as Trevor Lawrence and only 1-2 of them have gone on to be really good, at some point you need to start updating your priors on the likelihood of Trevor Lawrence being a star.
Again, that's not to write him off at all. But if we're talking about probabilistic projections of future career trajectory, I think it would be absolutely insane if anybody's projected range of outcomes right now looked the same or highly similar to what their projected range of outcomes looked like last June.
Pure hypothetical:I get that Jax is terrible. Awful. But we've seen awful, terrible teams before. It's amazing that this here is probably the battle for Lawrence's top game this year:
Week 1 at Hou (L, 37-21): 28-51 (54.9%), 332 yds, 3 td, 3 int
Week 4 at Cin (L, 24-21): 17-24 (70.8%), 204 yds, 0 td, 0 int
Let's not count Mac's last game for obvious reasons. So in his 12 real games, he's had 10 of them with a passer rating of 85 or better, 8 of them with a passer rating of 95 or better, and 4 of them with a passer rating of 110 or better.
By contrast, Lawrence has had 13 games, and in those, he's had 3 games with a passer rating below 60, 7 of them with a passer rating below 70, 9 of them with a passer rating below 80, and in just 3 of them was he even in the 90s. Zero games with a passer rating above 97.
So it's not like Lawrence's season has been skewed awfully by one or two bad games. He's generally been quite awful all season long. Mac, in contrast, hasn't been buoyed by one or two outstanding performances, though of course he's had one. Mac has just been consistently good all season long.
You're right that its not a big sample of awful top half of the first round rookie QBs (my guesstimate of 20-25 was clearly high) from the last 20 years but it does grow more substantially when you go back another 10 years, especially if we're a little loose with the passing attempts criterion. You would add David Carr, Joey Harrington, Eli (197 attempts), Alex Smith (165 attempts), Vince Young, Matthew Stafford, Mark Sanchez, Sam Bradford, Blaine Gabbert, and Christian Ponder. There were some bad QBs drafted high in those years!I don't have the last two decades, but in the last one decade, prior to this year, I count only 21 QBs drafted in the top 16 who had 200 pass attempts as rookies; of those, 6 put up sub-5 ANY/As; 2 (Goff and Allen) went on to at least some degree of success, while they other 4 (Rosen, Manuel, Bortles, Haskins) did not. 1/3 is probably not dissimilar from the overall hit rate for these guys. (We also have 6 QBs with 6+ ANY/As; Herbert, Watson, and Baker I guess are hits while Mariota, Winston, and RGIII are misses).
I don't think you're wrong but I'm not sure you're right either. The sample size is surprisingly small and the data to date is pretty murky.
Week 5 vs. TEN (L 37-19) 23/33 (69.7%) 273 yds 1 td 1 InT (+1 Rushing TD)I get that Jax is terrible. Awful. But we've seen awful, terrible teams before. It's amazing that this here is probably the battle for Lawrence's top game this year:
Week 1 at Hou (L, 37-21): 28-51 (54.9%), 332 yds, 3 td, 3 int
Week 4 at Cin (L, 24-21): 17-24 (70.8%), 204 yds, 0 td, 0 int
Lance had a 117 rating in the game he got 1 half.It's gone under the radar, but it's interesting to see that Mills is solidly the 2nd best rookie QB this year. He's in a similar situation to Lawrence/Fields/Wilson in that his organization is lousy and the team isn't ready to compete, but unlike those three he's shown actual flashes of competent play. It's getting crazier every week that Lawrence/Fields/Wilson/Lance have 0 games with a 100+ passer rating in a combined 32 starts (Mills has 2 in 7 starts, Mac has 6 in 13 starts).
I didn't include him originally, but then I realized he had started a game (1) and included that. He's definitely getting an "incomplete" grade for 2021, which is far better than Lawrence/Wilson/Fields will get.Lance had a 117 rating in the game he got 1 half.
He’s had a grand total of one start against a great D. I’m with you, I just saying Lance should be getting an incomplete and be excluded from the conversation.
Obviously dependent upon how he would have played as a senior, but given his size and some of his measurables, it isn't hard to see teams talking themselves into making him the top QB chosen in the draft.If Mills had stayed at Stanford is he a top 5 pick this year given the lack of top tier prospects? He's actually been pretty decent given that team and what he has to work with.
Just wanted to add these for comparison's sake:Updated totals:
Jones: 296/429, 69.0%, 3168 yards, 18/10 TD/INT, 94.6 rating--THIS WEEK: 26/45, 299 yards, 2/2 TD/INT
Lawrence: 293/504, 58.1%, 2945 yards, 9/14 TD/INT, 69.3 rating (also rushed for 264 yards, 2 TDs)--THIS WEEK: 22/38, 210 yards, 0/0 TD/INT.
Wilson: 173/308, 56.2%, 1911 yards, 6/11 TD/INT, 66.4 rating--THIS WEEK: 13/23, 170 yards, 0/0 TD/INT.
Fields: 159/270, 58.9%, 1870 yards, 7/10 TD/INT, 73.2 rating (also rushed for 420 yards, 2 TDs)--THIS WEEK: 26/39, 285 yards, 1/0 TD/INT, 35 yards rushing.
Lance: 25/48, 52.1%, 354 yards, 3/1 TD/INT, 88.4 rating (also rushed for 137 yards, 1 TD)
Mills: 198/302, 65.6%, 1946 yards, 10/9 TD/INT, 82.2 rating--THIS WEEK: 19/30, 209 yards, 2/1 TD/INT
Mac Jones w/out the first Bills game: 6 GAMES: 116/176, 66%, 1298 Yards, 9/6 TD/INT 61 rushing yards 5.89 ANY/A (I didn't recalculate this).It happened, but the wind game in Buffalo is a huge drag on his game averages, esp if looking at just the second half
You forgot Ian Book!Updated totals:
Jones: 310/461, 67.2%, 3313 yards, 18/12 TD/INT, 90.2 rating--THIS WEEK: 14/32, 145 yards, 0/2 TD/INT
Lawrence: 319/543, 58.7%, 3225 yards, 9/14 TD/INT, 70.6 rating (also rushed for 301 yards, 2 TDs)--THIS WEEK: 26/39, 280 yards, 0/0 TD/INT.
Wilson: 187/330, 56.7%, 2013 yards, 7/11 TD/INT, 67.9 rating--THIS WEEK: 14/22, 102 yards, 1/0 TD/INT, rushed for 91 yards and 1 TD
Fields: 159/270, 58.9%, 1870 yards, 7/10 TD/INT, 73.2 rating (also rushed for 420 yards, 2 TDs)--THIS WEEK: DNP
Lance: 25/48, 52.1%, 354 yards, 3/1 TD/INT, 88.4 rating (also rushed for 137 yards, 1 TD)--THIS WEEK: DNP
Mills: 219/329, 66.6%, 2200 yards, 12/9 TD/INT, 86.2 rating--THIS WEEK: 21/27, 254 yards, 2/0 TD/INT
--Wilson has rushed for 136 yards in the last 3 weeks after rushing for 25 the entire season prior to.
--With Jones in a slump the last few games, Mills has significantly closed the gap on passer rating and completion percentage, and Lawrence has done the same in passing yards.
Sure, but he played a team that struggled to remember their code "QXXCNNF" to check into the team's JetBlue flight four minutes into the game. Mills was a few minutes late and got stuck with a middle seat, lol boo hoo.Lance with a pretty solid start: 16-23 for 249 yards, 2 TDs and one INT. Also 8 rushes for 31 yards. By my count, he's the first 1st round rookie QB other than Mac Jones to have a start with a QB rating over 100. He's now 1-2 in that regard, Mac is 7-16 and Lawrence/Wilson/Fields are a combined 0-38. Davis Mills is 3-10.
Sure, although even taking his numbers with a grain of salt you can say with a straight face that he was better today than Lawrence/Wilson/Fields have been all year. The story of the rookie QBs this year really isn't Mac's play (really, he's performed at about the 90% best case scenario for his rookie year, not a gigantic surprise), nor is that Mills has been relatively ok despite being picked after everyone, or even that Lance is finally getting a shot after sitting most of the year. It's the complete absence of solid play from Lawrence/Wilson, and to a lesser extent, Fields. There's plenty of people who will give these guys a pass (they are rookies, they are in lousy situations, it's been an unusual year with covid), but they have been just uniformly awful.Sure, but he played a team that struggled to remember their code "QXXCNNF" to check into the team's JetBlue flight four minutes into the game. Mills was a few minutes late and got stuck with a middle seat, lol boo hoo.
Given the opponents (and to a lesser extent their own rosters), I thought Fields' game against the Vikings was a lot more impressive than Lance today, probably the PIT game as well.Sure, although even taking his numbers with a grain of salt you can say with a straight face that he was better today than Lawrence/Wilson/Fields have been all year. The story of the rookie QBs this year really isn't Mac's play (really, he's performed at about the 90% best case scenario for his rookie year, not a gigantic surprise), nor is that Mills has been relatively ok despite being picked after everyone, or even that Lance is finally getting a shot after sitting most of the year. It's the complete absence of solid play from Lawrence/Wilson, and to a lesser extent, Fields. There's plenty of people who will give these guys a pass (they are rookies, they are in lousy situations, it's been an unusual year with covid), but they have been just uniformly awful.
Lawrence has looked Josh Rosen levels of bad. Yes the Jags are terrible, but Gardner Minshew threw 16 TDs in 9 games on a 1 win Jacksonville team and Lawrence has thrown 9 in 15 games this year.Sure, although even taking his numbers with a grain of salt you can say with a straight face that he was better today than Lawrence/Wilson/Fields have been all year. The story of the rookie QBs this year really isn't Mac's play (really, he's performed at about the 90% best case scenario for his rookie year, not a gigantic surprise), nor is that Mills has been relatively ok despite being picked after everyone, or even that Lance is finally getting a shot after sitting most of the year. It's the complete absence of solid play from Lawrence/Wilson, and to a lesser extent, Fields. There's plenty of people who will give these guys a pass (they are rookies, they are in lousy situations, it's been an unusual year with covid), but they have been just uniformly awful.
Lawrence in particular has a QB rating in the high 60s - looking at all 9 QBs drafted 1st overall over the last dozen years (Lawrence, Burrow, Murray, Mayfield, Goff, Winston, Luck, Newton, Bradford), only Goff had a worse rookie year than Lawrence (and it's close). Yeah the Jacksonville situation is godawful, but almost all of these guys came into bad situations. Even if we allow that Jacksonville is worse than most, is it not balanced out by the fact that Lawrence was either the first or second most highly regarded prospect of the last dozen years (maybe second only to Luck)? I get giving him a pass if this situation is uniquely terrible, but flip it around and look for the good - has Lawrence shown anything at all this year to make people optimistic about his future? He's had one game with 70% completions (barely, 70.83% in week 4). He hasn't had double digit TD passes in a game since week 1. He hasn't had a game all year with more TD passes than interceptions. Coming into today he had one total TD (rushing or passing) since October. Other than staying healthy (I think), what's gone well?
I mean…yikes. Not sure why you don’t give some bland coach speak there.Mike Zimmer appears to have an issue with Kellen Mond.
View: https://twitter.com/IanKenyonNFL/status/1477874858352590851?t=fEB3Z5ETg7267E6TlA4WuQ&s=19