Zack Wilson

College football and the NFL Draft

Moderator: wab

User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12025
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1201 times
Been thanked: 2138 times

The Cooler King wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:19 pm I'm not strawmanning anything dplank. You keep bringing up the historical fail rate of QBs. But we all know that. Basically to find a QB who's just as safe as a comparable BPA OL you are looking at a top 3 pick, and even then the QB is more often still risker. You have to take a risk to increase your QB odds unless you just plan to count on nearly 100% luck. You brought up this magic 8 ball 1000% certainty when I claimed no such thing in fact

I disagree with the aversion to trading up, but I get it. Trading up is a good way to create your own odds when your record doesn't put you in the position, though. And you can help your OL other ways like in FA or in future years.

As to the development of an average QB v great QB, I'm not really sure I buy that an averag QB needs total certainty right when they come in. I don't think anyone in this board, including me doesn't want line upgrades, but if you were absolutely banking on that second rounder to be a specific position you're doing it wrong IMO. But it all goes back to the eval and risk assessment. Of course there's risk there, but I'm not focused on the low to mid range in a QB, I'm playing for the HR. For someone who apparently doesn't like the middle ground of outcomes I still find it odd you seem more risk averse in this matter. But as always, YMMV on risk assessments/comfort. That's seemingly the biggest difference.
The best teams in the league don't do desperate trade up moves very often, more often they trade down which is the safer bet as you get more attempts to land good players. We've seen Pace trade up repeatedly during his tenure, and it has NOT helped us. It has hurt us. I get you want the HR, but you have nearly as good a chance at hitting that home run WITHOUT TRADING UP - the delta is minor and you allow yourself more shots on goal if you don't squander draft picks all the time. i.e. I'll take 3 tries at a 1:50 shot over 1 try at a 1:40 shot. The trade up for Mitch was a terrible move, forget the missed eval he should have waited and taken his guy at 3 and we'd have had a couple extra pretty high picks at our disposal. The trade up for Leonard Floyd was a terrible move. You keep swinging for the fences and you're going to strike out a lot - too much and in too critical a situation. If it's bases loaded and we're down by 3, sure, swing away. But you seem to be advocating a guy swing for the fences when the bases are empty and we're down by 3 - that's selfish play, you need base runners first.
DevilsProspect
Pro Bowler
Posts: 445
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:37 pm
Location: Atlantic City, NJ

I want Dustin Crum.

Because I like the name. Lol
AC 46Blitz
DevilsProspect
Pro Bowler
Posts: 445
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:37 pm
Location: Atlantic City, NJ

dplank wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:39 pm
The Cooler King wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:19 pm I'm not strawmanning anything dplank. You keep bringing up the historical fail rate of QBs. But we all know that. Basically to find a QB who's just as safe as a comparable BPA OL you are looking at a top 3 pick, and even then the QB is more often still risker. You have to take a risk to increase your QB odds unless you just plan to count on nearly 100% luck. You brought up this magic 8 ball 1000% certainty when I claimed no such thing in fact

I disagree with the aversion to trading up, but I get it. Trading up is a good way to create your own odds when your record doesn't put you in the position, though. And you can help your OL other ways like in FA or in future years.

As to the development of an average QB v great QB, I'm not really sure I buy that an averag QB needs total certainty right when they come in. I don't think anyone in this board, including me doesn't want line upgrades, but if you were absolutely banking on that second rounder to be a specific position you're doing it wrong IMO. But it all goes back to the eval and risk assessment. Of course there's risk there, but I'm not focused on the low to mid range in a QB, I'm playing for the HR. For someone who apparently doesn't like the middle ground of outcomes I still find it odd you seem more risk averse in this matter. But as always, YMMV on risk assessments/comfort. That's seemingly the biggest difference.
The best teams in the league don't do desperate trade up moves very often, more often they trade down which is the safer bet as you get more attempts to land good players. We've seen Pace trade up repeatedly during his tenure, and it has NOT helped us. It has hurt us. I get you want the HR, but you have nearly as good a chance at hitting that home run WITHOUT TRADING UP - the delta is minor and you allow yourself more shots on goal if you don't squander draft picks all the time. i.e. I'll take 3 tries at a 1:50 shot over 1 try at a 1:40 shot. The trade up for Mitch was a terrible move, forget the missed eval he should have waited and taken his guy at 3 and we'd have had a couple extra pretty high picks at our disposal. The trade up for Leonard Floyd was a terrible move. You keep swinging for the fences and you're going to strike out a lot - too much and in too critical a situation. If it's bases loaded and we're down by 3, sure, swing away. But you seem to be advocating a guy swing for the fences when the bases are empty and we're down by 3 - that's selfish play, you need base runners first.
Two things that make those trades terrible, the fact that they would probably have fallen to the Bears anyway and that they were somewhat swings anyway. They didn’t swing for Joe Burrow, a guy that not only looked the part but proved it. Mitch showed some things that we all liked (or at least most of us). But he still had a little “project” in him. A guy like him you don’t trade up for. You sit and hope. At the time I liked the pick, but at the moment of the trade I was pissed. Trubisky was my guy The Whole time, but would have been ok if we ended up with maholmes instead.

Floyd also felt like a reach. I forgot the profile on him, but I remember not being too excited about him. If I recall I wanted to see a OL pick. Got to look back, my memory is getting worse. Lol
AC 46Blitz
DevilsProspect
Pro Bowler
Posts: 445
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:37 pm
Location: Atlantic City, NJ

Ahh, shit.... didn’t realize that was the same draft as Tunsil was in. Pretty sure I wanted either Tunsil, Decker or Hargreaves.... And the bears took Floyd.... smh
AC 46Blitz
User avatar
The Cooler King
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5005
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 1203 times
Been thanked: 346 times

dplank wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:39 pm
The Cooler King wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:19 pm I'm not strawmanning anything dplank. You keep bringing up the historical fail rate of QBs. But we all know that. Basically to find a QB who's just as safe as a comparable BPA OL you are looking at a top 3 pick, and even then the QB is more often still risker. You have to take a risk to increase your QB odds unless you just plan to count on nearly 100% luck. You brought up this magic 8 ball 1000% certainty when I claimed no such thing in fact

I disagree with the aversion to trading up, but I get it. Trading up is a good way to create your own odds when your record doesn't put you in the position, though. And you can help your OL other ways like in FA or in future years.

As to the development of an average QB v great QB, I'm not really sure I buy that an averag QB needs total certainty right when they come in. I don't think anyone in this board, including me doesn't want line upgrades, but if you were absolutely banking on that second rounder to be a specific position you're doing it wrong IMO. But it all goes back to the eval and risk assessment. Of course there's risk there, but I'm not focused on the low to mid range in a QB, I'm playing for the HR. For someone who apparently doesn't like the middle ground of outcomes I still find it odd you seem more risk averse in this matter. But as always, YMMV on risk assessments/comfort. That's seemingly the biggest difference.
The best teams in the league don't do desperate trade up moves very often, more often they trade down which is the safer bet as you get more attempts to land good players. We've seen Pace trade up repeatedly during his tenure, and it has NOT helped us. It has hurt us. I get you want the HR, but you have nearly as good a chance at hitting that home run WITHOUT TRADING UP - the delta is minor and you allow yourself more shots on goal if you don't squander draft picks all the time. i.e. I'll take 3 tries at a 1:50 shot over 1 try at a 1:40 shot. The trade up for Mitch was a terrible move, forget the missed eval he should have waited and taken his guy at 3 and we'd have had a couple extra pretty high picks at our disposal. The trade up for Leonard Floyd was a terrible move. You keep swinging for the fences and you're going to strike out a lot - too much and in too critical a situation. If it's bases loaded and we're down by 3, sure, swing away. But you seem to be advocating a guy swing for the fences when the bases are empty and we're down by 3 - that's selfish play, you need base runners first.
You know that's kind of an interesting analogy. I mean it's obviously not perfect because building a team doesn't have 9 set inning you have to work within. But theres this kind of sequencing fallacy I think you fall into. It's a nice story and quite elegant when you're down in a baseball game and string together a couple base hits and RBI and then the batter comes through with the walkoff HR to win it. But from a pure odds perspective its just as valuable to hit that first solo dinger and cut that lead from 4 to 3. And as to the selfishness or what have you it's very circumstancial driven by the order, the pitcher, the weather, etc. But I'd say there's times where it's okay to swing for the fences, absoutely. In fact that's where baseball has moved towards because the data backs up that changes to the swing like launch angle work well for scoring at large.

So it's similar to the team building I think. There's seemingly a "natural order" you seem to prefer, whether it's risk related or positional related, but I don't see any actual evidence for it other than, and I'm serious here, it does make for the more elegant and nice storyline where you honed the basics and start at square one and build the "right" way. But I reject the existence of a right way out of hand, at least as it relates to any proper positional/risk order in which you build the team.

The Bears past failures also play zero role here to me. Pure sunk cost. As to the great franchises on their behavior. I'm not aware of any actual evidence of this supposed trade down risk behavior. There are certain things they've exploited in the market, but absent any serious evidence I think it's more than likely just a nice story that the prioritize the trade down. (did a quick search ans there's a few scant antectodal articles on QB trade ups and that seems to be it). I know theres been some good articles on the traditional trade value chart verse new analytical charts, but that doesn't quite capture any true story to say which teams use trades most successfully and whether there's a pattern of behavior. Antectodally I can find both instances. And there's time seemingly neither side wins if they both use the picks poorly.

If the odds are really 3 @ 1:50 verse 1 @ 1:40 of course that's an easy trade. I suspect the risk assessment is much closer and messy in all reality.
User avatar
Z Bear
MVP
Posts: 1656
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:45 am
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 141 times

The Cooler King wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:31 pm u count Watson as the best QB in his class (point still stands, but you missed an MVP there).
Not the best in his class, that would be Mahomes. I was just randomly listing QBs I thought were the top 10 in the league right now and only 1 was the first QB taken in his class. My main point is it is more likely the 3rd or 4th QB off the board will end up with the better career. I was trying to dispute the notion that you have to trade up in the top 10 to get the best QB.
User avatar
The Cooler King
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5005
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 1203 times
Been thanked: 346 times

Z Bear wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 5:26 pm
The Cooler King wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:31 pm u count Watson as the best QB in his class (point still stands, but you missed an MVP there).
Not the best in his class, that would be Mahomes. I was just randomly listing QBs I thought were the top 10 in the league right now and only 1 was the first QB taken in his class. My main point is it is more likely the 3rd or 4th QB off the board will end up with the better career. I was trying to dispute the notion that you have to trade up in the top 10 to get the best QB.
Gotcha. Well you still missed your best data point in Mahomes!

Also fwiw I did the 4th pick analysis for dplank recently in another thread. It oddly kinda sucked. 3 and 5 were much better. Just the nature of somewhat small sample sizes combined with the generally high failure rate of QBs at any spot, I think.
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12025
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1201 times
Been thanked: 2138 times

The Cooler King wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 5:19 pm
You know that's kind of an interesting analogy. I mean it's obviously not perfect because building a team doesn't have 9 set inning you have to work within. But theres this kind of sequencing fallacy I think you fall into. It's a nice story and quite elegant when you're down in a baseball game and string together a couple base hits and RBI and then the batter comes through with the walkoff HR to win it. But from a pure odds perspective its just as valuable to hit that first solo dinger and cut that lead from 4 to 3. And as to the selfishness or what have you it's very circumstancial driven by the order, the pitcher, the weather, etc. But I'd say there's times where it's okay to swing for the fences, absoutely. In fact that's where baseball has moved towards because the data backs up that changes to the swing like launch angle work well for scoring at large.
I like the analogy too, fun even if meaningless lol...but I disagree that there is a sequencing fallacy. You are correct that the solo HR is just as valuable as the base hit or a walk; however, the batter has a greater chance of getting a single or a walk vs taking a big cut for a HR which often leads to a strikeout. In this specific example, abwalk is equally valuable as a HR, so your strategy goes after the one that yields a higher probability of success. I agree there are times to swing for the fences, this just isn't it.
User avatar
mmmc_35
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6113
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:25 am
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Jimmy mac, steve young, ty detmer.

Maybe if he grows a beard, I wouldn't want to do horrible things to his throat or his mother.

Kid has talent for sure. I wish he was a senior.
User avatar
The Cooler King
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5005
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 1203 times
Been thanked: 346 times

dplank wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 8:45 pm
The Cooler King wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 5:19 pm
You know that's kind of an interesting analogy. I mean it's obviously not perfect because building a team doesn't have 9 set inning you have to work within. But theres this kind of sequencing fallacy I think you fall into. It's a nice story and quite elegant when you're down in a baseball game and string together a couple base hits and RBI and then the batter comes through with the walkoff HR to win it. But from a pure odds perspective its just as valuable to hit that first solo dinger and cut that lead from 4 to 3. And as to the selfishness or what have you it's very circumstancial driven by the order, the pitcher, the weather, etc. But I'd say there's times where it's okay to swing for the fences, absoutely. In fact that's where baseball has moved towards because the data backs up that changes to the swing like launch angle work well for scoring at large.
I like the analogy too, fun even if meaningless lol...but I disagree that there is a sequencing fallacy. You are correct that the solo HR is just as valuable as the base hit or a walk; however, the batter has a greater chance of getting a single or a walk vs taking a big cut for a HR which often leads to a strikeout. In this specific example, abwalk is equally valuable as a HR, so your strategy goes after the one that yields a higher probability of success. I agree there are times to swing for the fences, this just isn't it.
Without derailing too much, a HR swing can lead to other positive non HR hits. A swing for the fences isnt an automatic two outcome swing. It's just a slightly different leveraged swing as far as outcomes.
DevilsProspect
Pro Bowler
Posts: 445
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:37 pm
Location: Atlantic City, NJ

These analogies are killing me. :frustrated: Lol
AC 46Blitz
User avatar
G08
Hall of Famer
Posts: 20560
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:34 pm
Location: Football Hell
Has thanked: 209 times
Been thanked: 758 times

mmmc_35 wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 8:50 pm Maybe if he grows a beard, I wouldn't want to do horrible things to his throat.
Image
9 PLAYOFF APPEARANCES IN THE PAST 35 SEASONS

User avatar
Z Bear
MVP
Posts: 1656
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:45 am
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 141 times

DevilsProspect wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:43 pm I want Dustin Crum.

Because I like the name. Lol
I like him because he has a cannon for an arm, is extremely mobile, and rarely makes mistakes on his reads according to his coach (has like a 8 to 1 TD to INT ratio for career).
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12025
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1201 times
Been thanked: 2138 times

The Cooler King wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:02 pm
dplank wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 8:45 pm

I like the analogy too, fun even if meaningless lol...but I disagree that there is a sequencing fallacy. You are correct that the solo HR is just as valuable as the base hit or a walk; however, the batter has a greater chance of getting a single or a walk vs taking a big cut for a HR which often leads to a strikeout. In this specific example, abwalk is equally valuable as a HR, so your strategy goes after the one that yields a higher probability of success. I agree there are times to swing for the fences, this just isn't it.
Without derailing too much, a HR swing can lead to other positive non HR hits. A swing for the fences isnt an automatic two outcome swing. It's just a slightly different leveraged swing as far as outcomes.
It can Bill but in this instance we know we have roughly a 90% chance of a whiff. No thx. I’ll be happy to take a QB in the 3rd, with a 95% chance of a whiff, less lost opportunity cost. And I’d certainly not trade up and give away our second!!! Puts all your eggs in one long shot basket!
User avatar
mmmc_35
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6113
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:25 am
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 98 times

G08 wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:30 pm
mmmc_35 wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 8:50 pm Maybe if he grows a beard, I wouldn't want to do horrible things to his throat.
Image
Second time you made same joke, it seems like you're projecting there. We all get your uncomfortable man crushes,
User avatar
G08
Hall of Famer
Posts: 20560
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:34 pm
Location: Football Hell
Has thanked: 209 times
Been thanked: 758 times

mmmc_35 wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 10:26 am
G08 wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:30 pm

Image
Second time you made same joke, it seems like you're projecting there. We all get your uncomfortable man crushes,
Never deviate from a classic / if the shoe fits ;)
9 PLAYOFF APPEARANCES IN THE PAST 35 SEASONS

User avatar
mmmc_35
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6113
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:25 am
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 98 times

G08 wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 10:44 am
mmmc_35 wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 10:26 am

Second time you made same joke, it seems like you're projecting there. We all get your uncomfortable man crushes,
Never deviate from a classic / if the shoe fits ;)
Put a wig on him, with his effeminate facial features I might take a stab at it.
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5901
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 1716 times

mmmc_35 wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:09 am
G08 wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 10:44 am

Never deviate from a classic / if the shoe fits ;)
Put a wig on him, with his effeminate facial features I might take a stab at it.
Who? Hugh Laurie?

Image
DevilsProspect
Pro Bowler
Posts: 445
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:37 pm
Location: Atlantic City, NJ

Z Bear wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 7:28 am
DevilsProspect wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:43 pm I want Dustin Crum.

Because I like the name. Lol
I like him because he has a cannon for an arm, is extremely mobile, and rarely makes mistakes on his reads according to his coach (has like a 8 to 1 TD to INT ratio for career).
Too early to know where he will go, but at the moment it wouldn’t be a bad guy to target in the middle of draft. Prob stuck with Foles another year depending of what direction the team goes. But if they fix the line and run with Foles with Crum on bench it wouldn’t be terrible.
AC 46Blitz
User avatar
Grizzled
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5552
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:55 pm
Has thanked: 605 times
Been thanked: 485 times

3 year starter in a pro style offense. Excellent completion percentage with good yards per completion, not just a dinker. Very good TD:INT ratio. He has mobility. Had a down year in 2019, bounced back this year although against lessor competition. Even first round QBs have a 50% failure rate but I'd say the team has to seriously consider him if he's available when they're on the clock. Don't, however, trade the future, no giving up draft picks to move up and take him.
Drafts are like snowflakes, no two are alike.
User avatar
G08
Hall of Famer
Posts: 20560
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:34 pm
Location: Football Hell
Has thanked: 209 times
Been thanked: 758 times

HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 4:25 pm
mmmc_35 wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:09 am

Put a wig on him, with his effeminate facial features I might take a stab at it.
Who? Hugh Laurie?

Image
:rofl:
9 PLAYOFF APPEARANCES IN THE PAST 35 SEASONS

User avatar
Umbali
MVP
Posts: 1042
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:32 pm
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 83 times

Can someone please explain to me , why in these trade away players scenarios we trade away Eddie Jackson?
Fantasy Team: Peanut Punchers
User avatar
crueltyabc
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5119
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 7:36 pm
Location: Dallas TX
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 226 times

Umbali wrote: Fri Dec 04, 2020 9:20 pm Can someone please explain to me , why in these trade away players scenarios we trade away Eddie Jackson?
I think people consider a high-priced elite safety to be a luxury for a contending team, not a necessity for a rebuilding team.
xyt in the discord chats
User avatar
WP.1
Player of the Month
Posts: 271
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 5:03 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Today BYU vs. unbeaten Coastal Carolina.
but it appears that CC is another Offense Power not so much Defense.

BYU easy schedule is telling
Zach Wilson sacks two good opp. BSU 3, Houston 2 (and vs. Troy 1 CB blitz)

all other 6 games = 0
User avatar
Z Bear
MVP
Posts: 1656
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:45 am
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 141 times

Zach Wilson looked very ordinary last night. Didn't necessarily look bad, but did not look like a top 10 pick either.
User avatar
mmmc_35
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6113
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:25 am
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Z Bear wrote: Sun Dec 06, 2020 8:25 am Zach Wilson looked very ordinary last night. Didn't necessarily look bad, but did not look like a top 10 pick either.
I didnt watch game, but saw coastal Carolina got after Wilson at all costs. Kid has a good arm, and is athletic. His bowl game will be interesting
User avatar
The Cooler King
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5005
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 1203 times
Been thanked: 346 times

crueltyabc wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 2:29 pm
Umbali wrote: Fri Dec 04, 2020 9:20 pm Can someone please explain to me , why in these trade away players scenarios we trade away Eddie Jackson?
I think people consider a high-priced elite safety to be a luxury for a contending team, not a necessity for a rebuilding team.
And he probably carries the most trade value of anyone on the Bears? Maybe Mack still has more, but the contract makes a dofference here.

I want nothing to do with trading him, fwiw.
User avatar
Otis Day
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8061
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:43 pm
Location: Armpit of IL.
Has thanked: 120 times
Been thanked: 306 times

Coastal was out to just kick Wilson's ass. they got away with a lot of post whistle shit in that game, bordered on dirty IMO. They were just wanting to hit him now matter when or where. He handled it pretty well. Sad to see his team didn't stick up for him more.
User avatar
Z Bear
MVP
Posts: 1656
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:45 am
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 141 times

For sure, I watched most of the game. #94 on CCU seemed to have it out for Zach all night.
User avatar
The Cooler King
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5005
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 1203 times
Been thanked: 346 times

Otis Day wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 1:49 pm Coastal was out to just kick Wilson's ass. they got away with a lot of post whistle shit in that game, bordered on dirty IMO. They were just wanting to hit him now matter when or where. He handled it pretty well. Sad to see his team didn't stick up for him more.
Hm. His teammates not sticking up for him is a bad sign.

Has Pace looked into how well attended his birthday party was this past year?

(bonus points for whoever understands this reference)
Post Reply