This is why Bryce Young undoubtedly is QB1

[thefuzz]

1 minute ago, stan786 said:

I agree with your sentiment up top, but we disagree pretty heavily on the injuries I can say as a Panthers fan I was nervous everytime cam got hit after his shoulder injury. As a Ravens fan i'm sure you hold your breathe when Lamar takes a hit. As a Bills fan you question if Allen hadnt got hurt last year do you win it all. 49ers had QBs big, small, in the pocket, out of the pocket get hurt to tank their year. Staffords arm is dead with no clear reason why. Tua gets his concussions because he lets his head ragdoll, Culter says he had 15 concussions in his career. RG3 tears his knee up on an unfortunate run, Wentz whos a big guy also tore his knee up on an unfortunate run.

All size QBs get hurt, there is zero correlation or evidence that smaller QBs or players get hurt at some increased level than big QBs. Its a total gut feel thing. Calling Bryce a 179 lb Maverick QB helps illustrate that bias there. I get it you like Stroud more and I dont blame you but I think its just disingenuous to push a narrative his size is immediately going to get him hurt more when no one knows because there is nothing to say that should necessarily be the case other than "Logically I feel that should be the case".

History is what I'm going with, not hope....it's fine to go with hope, it's fun, but not normally as productive.

How long is the list of QB's (that are good) that have been sub 6' tall?  Not 6', sub 6'.

Again, I'm not knocking Young, and were he just 3" taller, and or 20#s heavier/thicker, I'd be in his camp all day...and screaming about it from the rooftops.  However, he's not.  Now, I'm not a fan of where CJ went to school, but that doesn't bother me as much as not being a fan of Young's size.

 

[XClown1986]

Bryce has that immeasurable "it" factor that CJ lacks. Now I will say it isn't exactly necessary to have, but it makes a vast difference over the entire body of work in their career. This is what separates the Joe Burrows and Patrick Mahomes' from the Justin Herberts and the Jared Goffs. The 2nd two have been decent in their own right (Herbert especially), but there just seems to be something... missing that the 1st two possess. And it impacts their play and their team's play. 

[stan786]

8 minutes ago, thefuzz said:

History is what I'm going with, not hope....it's fine to go with hope, it's fun, but not normally as productive.

How long is the list of QB's (that are good) that have been sub 6' tall?  Not 6', sub 6'.

Again, I'm not knocking Young, and were he just 3" taller, and or 20#s heavier/thicker, I'd be in his camp all day...and screaming about it from the rooftops.  However, he's not.  Now, I'm not a fan of where CJ went to school, but that doesn't bother me as much as not being a fan of Young's size.

 

I think this is where the difference if for me I completely agree Young is an outlier due to his size, but not because that makes him get injured at a higher rate because history doesnt show that.

But History does show his size is an outlier and I think if you look at it historically its probably for a number of reasons.

Its the same reason Richardson's accuracy makes him an outlier.

Players with these profiles do not get drafted this high unless they are special, because there is so little history of success with them.  The only successful comp to Richardson is Josh Allen, no other players with that profile got drafted high and the ones that didnt never succeeded. NFL teams generally only draft outliers if their skillsets make them special and the ones that arent dont really ever get the chance.

There is almost a survival of the fittest aspect to this, most QBs that short (Or that inaccurate but big and athletic) either get processed out to other positions or only get offers to smaller colleges because they dont fit the classic example of successful QBs and coaches generally coach to what is known. Then there isnt the development needed etc. NFL has moved more recently to one where small QBs have proven they can succeed (In very small samples).

I completely understand being nervous about drafting an outlier size QB at 1 and understand the logic of if your grade is similar to two guys take the non outlier. I am more arguing that these guys arent outliers because they get hurt more, its because they dont get the opportunities historically and its proven out for a number of different types of QBs lately. I remember when there was an argument you cant win with rushing QBs, and thats shifted pretty heavily as well.

End of days I think their are legit arguments to wanting to argue Stroud is a better QB and I'm even comfortable making them, this board has devolved to pushing this injury narrative and it just doesnt make sense.

Edited March 24, 2023 by stan786

[thefuzz]

1 minute ago, stan786 said:

I think this is where the difference if for me I completely agree Young is an outlier due to his size, but not because that makes him get injured at a higher rate because history doesnt show that.

But History does show his size is an outlier and I think if you look at it historically its probably for a number of reasons.

Its the same reason Richardson's accuracy makes him an outlier.

Players with these profiles do not get drafted this high unless they are special, because there is so little history of success with them.  The only successful comp to Richardson is Josh Allen, no other players with that profile got drafted high and the ones that didnt never succeeded. NFL teams generally only draft outliers if their skillsets make them special and the ones that arent dont really ever get the chance.

There is almost a survival of the fittest aspect to this, most QBs that short (Or that inaccurate but big and athletic) either get processed out to other positions or only get offers to smaller colleges because they dont fit the classic example of successful QBs and coaches generally coach to what is known. Then there isnt the development needed etc. NFL has moved more recently to one where small QBs have proven they can succeed (In very small samples).

I completely understand being nervous about drafting an outlier size QB at 1 and understand the logic of if your grade is similar to two guys take the non outlier. I am more arguing that these guys arent outliers because they get hurt more, its because they dont get the opportunities historically and its proven out for a number of different types of QBs lately. I remember when there was an argument you cant win with rushing QBs, and thats shifted pretty heavily as well.

OK.  I'll explain it as best as I can, and you are smelling what' I'm stepping in BTW....

Were we still sitting at 9, or even 5, I'd have no problem pulling the lever for Young, I think that he's a smart, capable QB that comes from great coaching, and has won in college.  All In, no problem at all.

But we aren't.  We gave up a 1st and a 2nd....as well as a top 20 WR who was under contract long term for the chance to move up to 1.  If this goes sideways, everyone in the front office and coaching staff will once again be looking for new jobs.  All of them.

That's why I believe that you have to go with the "prototypical" QB with that selection.  Perfect size, good coaching, winner, big arm, etc....checks all the boxes. 

There is a reason that Allen and Mahommes didn't go 1 overall, and it's those reasons are why I'm skeptical of Young at 1.

[XClown1986]

4 minutes ago, thefuzz said:

OK.  I'll explain it as best as I can, and you are smelling what' I'm stepping in BTW....

Were we still sitting at 9, or even 5, I'd have no problem pulling the lever for Young, I think that he's a smart, capable QB that comes from great coaching, and has won in college.  All In, no problem at all.

But we aren't.  We gave up a 1st and a 2nd....as well as a top 20 WR who was under contract long term for the chance to move up to 1.  If this goes sideways, everyone in the front office and coaching staff will once again be looking for new jobs.  All of them.

That's why I believe that you have to go with the "prototypical" QB with that selection.  Perfect size, good coaching, winner, big arm, etc....checks all the boxes. 

There is a reason that Allen and Mahommes didn't go 1 overall, and it's those reasons are why I'm skeptical of Young at 1.

Yes, but those reasons proved to be invalid. The guys that passed on Allen and Mahomes as direct result of those choices. The goal of any scout, exec, coach in the league is to trust the process, but also learn from past mistakes.

And what about this offseason shows that the franchise is playing it safe? We are making some difficult and costly decisions to turn this team into a winner. Why would you then play it safe with the most important position in all of sports? These guys are swinging for the fences, not for singles or doubles. They are CLEARLY gambling. They played it safe with Rhule and it was an epic failure.

So...

We hired a coach that was just fired.

Overspent on an experienced, talented coaching staff.

Traded our #1 (and only reliable) receiver in his prime.

Actually made impact signings during free agency.

and traded for the #1 pick

.... None of these moves are safe, by any stretch. So them going with a "prototype" (physically) quarterback would seem almost out of joint with this new direction for the team. I don't think they feel, or have felt, that they have to play it safe, at all.

Edited March 24, 2023 by XClown1986

[stan786]

Just now, thefuzz said:

OK.  I'll explain it as best as I can, and you are smelling what' I'm stepping in BTW....

Were we still sitting at 9, or even 5, I'd have no problem pulling the lever for Young, I think that he's a smart, capable QB that comes from great coaching, and has won in college.  All In, no problem at all.

But we aren't.  We gave up a 1st and a 2nd....as well as a top 20 WR who was under contract long term for the chance to move up to 1.  If this goes sideways, everyone in the front office and coaching staff will once again be looking for new jobs.  All of them.

That's why I believe that you have to go with the "prototypical" QB with that selection.  Perfect size, good coaching, winner, big arm, etc....checks all the boxes. 

There is a reason that Allen and Mahommes didn't go 1 overall, and it's those reasons are why I'm skeptical of Young at 1.

Yup that makes sense to me and I think that's an argument I 100% respect as well. Its one of the arguments that goes through my mind, the risk profile of taking an outlier, and one that historically maybe Reich doesnt work with is scary I wont lie.

Also I have argued on here I think Stroud has shown the traits he did in the Georgia game before that game if you really watch and I really like what I think he could be, I just think it also requires some projection which Young also requires.

I personally have no qualms with playing it safe because I think Stroud is legitimately a great prospect.

My view of Young is in line with yours as well with the Allen Mahomes outlier risk/speical vs bust stuff, and its also what puts me back on Young over Stroud at times is the ease of all the hard things for Young and the It factor, I think its really hard to find QBs that can do what he does and they tend to be the special ones. But as I said in an earlier comment Young being that outlier does have crash and burn potential, I'm just arguing it more from the stance the NFL isnt really built for QBs his size and how he translates is a risk, but I guess I think I feel thats being reduced to the narrative he's automatically getting hurt in most comments on this board so thats what the stick up my butt this morning has been about hahaha.

[Jackie Lee]

Didn't know Strouds 59mph was ahead of Mahomes and Herbert, never really payed attention to that drill/measurement. I don't think Bryce measured that yesterday

 

[gmonjimbo]

5 minutes ago, thefuzz said:

History is what I'm going with, not hope....it's fine to go with hope, it's fun, but not normally as productive.

How long is the list of QB's (that are good) that have been sub 6' tall?  Not 6', sub 6'.

Again, I'm not knocking Young, and were he just 3" taller, and or 20#s heavier/thicker, I'd be in his camp all day...and screaming about it from the rooftops.  However, he's not.  Now, I'm not a fan of where CJ went to school, but that doesn't bother me as much as not being a fan of Young's size.

 

I think your points are warranted. However, we don't have enough data yet. Being under Six-foot QB trying to enter the NFL in the 80s, 90s, and 00s was usually two options - switch positions or alternative football league. With the success of Russel Wilson. It has opened the door for Kyler Murray and Bryce Young to be in consideration as no.1 overall picks. 

Also, the NFL game is still very much physical but the rules in the pocket have made it more digestable to consider undersized players. 

Even me as a pro Bryce supporter wouldn't consider him highly if this was pre Brady and Rodgers rule of not going low or putting full body weight on QB. 

[rightturn]

28 minutes ago, stan786 said:

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/weight-and-injuries

I've been trying to find other studies but this is the most complete one I can find. Now I would say if you really think about why this would be the case is it because their size helps them? I doubt it, is it because they get put in harms way less? maybe.

I would personally argue there is no good data pointing a clear direction either way, I am more arguing people making a gigantic assumption he's automatically getting hurt more are just doing it because they feel that way when nothings really shown it.

That's more overweight/heavy then undersized

[stan786]

4 minutes ago, Jackie Lee said:

Didn't know Strouds 59mph was ahead of Mahomes and Herbert, never really payed attention to that drill/measurement. I don't think Bryce measured that yesterday

 

Strouds arm is beautiful, I actually like just watching his film just to watch how great the ball looks coming out of his hand, I think people dont expect his arm strength because how easy it looks.

[stan786]

6 minutes ago, rightturn said:

That's more overweight/heavy then undersized

Sure because there isnt great data because he's an outlier, the QB number does illustrate the same pattern though.

Also some of the heavier TEs and RBs dont get hurt as much, which paints a picture that more is going on with the data than what it just shows.

All i'm saying is even with that data there was no noticeable trend that states Bryce is going to get hurt more than anyone else, there isnt data that says smaller QBs get hurt more than Bigger ones (That I can find). People are taking gut feels and acting like its guaranteed.

I even said when posting it I wouldnt take it for any fact its more i've been looking at both history and data for a month and a half because its something I was legitimately curious about.

Edited March 24, 2023 by stan786

[thefuzz]

16 minutes ago, XClown1986 said:

Yes, but those reasons proved to be invalid. The guys that passed on Allen and Mahomes as direct result of those choices. The goal of any scout, exec, coach in the league is to trust the process, but also learn from past mistakes.

And what about this offseason shows that the franchise is playing it safe? We are making some difficult and costly decisions to turn this team into a winner. Why would you then play it safe with the most important position in all of sports? These guys are swinging for the fences, not for singles or doubles. They are CLEARLY gambling. They played it safe with Rhule and it was an epic failure.

So...

We hired a coach that was just fired.

Overspent on an experienced, talented coaching staff.

Traded our #1 (and only reliable) receiver in his prime.

Actually made impact signings during free agency.

and traded for the #1 pick

.... None of these moves are safe, by any stretch. So them going with a "prototype" (physically) quarterback would seem almost out of joint with this new direction for the team. I don't think they feel, or have felt, that they have to play it safe, at all.

You and I have very different meanings of the word safe and risky.

IMO giving a lead leading contract to a college coach who never worked in the pro's is risky.  Allowing him to have roster control is risky.  Keeping him for a 3rd year after shitting the bed is risky.

Hiring some of the very best coaches in the league seems rather safe to me.  Moving up to 1 to not risk not getting your guy at 8-2...that seems safe to me.  

Drafting the smallest QB in league history at 1 seems very risky to me.

Like I said, we view the words differently.

[Soul Rebel]

38 minutes ago, thefuzz said:

History is what I'm going with, not hope....it's fine to go with hope, it's fun, but not normally as productive.

How long is the list of QB's (that are good) that have been sub 6' tall?  Not 6', sub 6'.

Again, I'm not knocking Young, and were he just 3" taller, and or 20#s heavier/thicker, I'd be in his camp all day...and screaming about it from the rooftops.  However, he's not.  Now, I'm not a fan of where CJ went to school, but that doesn't bother me as much as not being a fan of Young's size.

 

As a fan of a franchise that very recently had a prototypical, athletic freak of a QB, Cam only enjoyed maybe 6-7 years of injury-free ball before his play sharply declined.

There is simply no way to predict productivity vs. injury at the next level. 

Young could be an outlier, or he could be part of the huge sample size. 

Edited March 24, 2023 by Soul Rebel

[thefuzz]

2 minutes ago, Soul Rebel said:

As a fan of a franchise that very recently had a prototypical, athletic freak of a QB, Cam only enjoyed maybe 6-7 years of injury-free ball before his play sharply declined.

There is simply no way to predict productivity vs. injury at the next level. 

Young could be an outlier, or he could be part of the huge sample size. 

Cam played the position poorly.  Not that he was a bad QB, but that he chose to invite contact, as did his coach.  That's stupid, but that's who he is.

BTW, Young IS already an outlier, now you are asking him to be extremely lucky.  Possible, but doubtful....to me....and I matter zero.