Excited Delirium Over Fields

[RichH55]

Sorry I brought up valid points you didn't want to answer

[RichH55]

I'm still waiting to hear any valid argument against Lawrence besides hes a white guy and has great hair

(The Hair thing is pretty hateable in fairness)

[Yogi da Bear]

I don’t know how else to put it so that you understand. No, I don’t see a difference!! YOU see a difference. I’m saying that there’s almost no distinction between Watson and Lawrence NCAA resumes. I’m not the one calling one guy generational and the other guy a turd. I just don’t know how else to make you understand. Lawrence is a great prospect, SO WAS WATSON.

DP, I think you do understand. You just don't want to say it. I'll say it for you. It's real simple.

Rich's Likes:





The second is a "generational talent" to Rich.

Rich's Dislikes:





He proclaims these preferences with absolutely no foundation. He proclaims them despite direct statistical documentation to the contrary. He calls one a "Generational Talent" and the other NOT even a Superstar despite them playing for the same team with similar stats and won/loss records and despite both having won a Championship.

I'm sorry, maybe it's not straight out racism, but it's certainly indicative of the Racial Bias with respect to QB that lives and breaths in the NFL. There can be no other rationale for it. It's so readily transparent when you put it to pictures, and it should be called out for what it is.

Incidentally, much like with Watson, Rich said that Mahomes should be a late first/early second round pick at best. Wonder why? I don't.

[AZ_Bearfan]

[dplank]

Yogi it’s just childish stubbornness. The circular argument was laughable.

Rich: Those stats are super close, how can you say one is better than the other
Me: I’m not, I’m saying they are similar prospects.
RIch: No they aren’t, one is generational the other isn’t
Me: Do you remember that thing you just said?



Or this beauty....

Rich: Watsons not great, hes just ok. He’s gonna shit the bed without Hopkins.
Me: He literally just led the league in passing without Hopkins
Rich: He’s good not great.

[RichH55]

Were the Texans top 15 in Scoring last year ? Simple Question (If I was being a dick I could ask Watson: More TD or Sexual Assaults?)

With games against Detroit (see any post from Dplank extolling how playing the Lions for Mitch is akin to Sisters of the Poor), 2 against a tanking Jags team, and two against the Titans (who give up a ton of Points)

Again simple question

Do Points Matter?

[RichH55]

And of course - the nuisanced argument about why Watson's stats fell as a Junior, or if he can maintain the running game, - All of which qualify as Red Flags

There just aren't any Red Flags on Trevor Lawrence - that's why he's a Generational Talent - and that is exceedingly fair


Also - Interceptions matter - Im sorry Dplank doesnt tend to think that - I disagree - 17 INT is not good


But at least I get called a Racist now -Wow.

(I preferred Winston to Mariotta btw but when you can make up BS you might as well)

Or that I can't talk myself into the BYU kid (probably not white enough!!!)

Or that I said repeatedly when Mitch was playing well - I worry its too much about the Legs (Mitch is super not white enough)

And the INT between Watson and Lawrence were not super close

Watson's INT numbers as a Junior (presumably what should be his best year) are literally EQUAL to Lawrence's entire College Career

[RichH55]

And Yogi absolutely never said that on Maholmes

Said that on Mariotta - they both start with a M - so close! Good for you

You still can't admit Mariotta was kind of a bust I know

My take on Maholmes was actually this: I couldn't scout him - To me he was akin to Johnny Football - I have no idea. The arm strength was easy easy. And he made play after play - But many of them were off platform, off script. Frankly I had no idea how that would translate in the Pro Game for either player - And you wound up with very different end games

He rose in the draft process - he was projected as a late 1st/early 2nd for much of the process - Acknowledging Facts is allowed. I never had a strong option on Maholmes either way (I DID have strong opinions on Watson - and that was before I knew that Megan's Law might not let him play)

Mariotta was projected as top 3 Pick - very likely a Shot at Number 1 (infamously bad Pete Carroll take by Yogi here) - but I thought that was much too high and that late 1st /early 2nd was more realistic due to his deficiencies at Oregon (though honestly one of the Best Heisman speeches you are gonna get)

Turns out I was too high on Mariotta still - since hes not good at NFL Football (Yogi invitation to quadruple down here - TURN THOSE MACHINES BACK ON!)


I also hated Matt Barkley and Yogi loved him - More racism? Was Matt Barkley akin to Steve Martin in The Jerk?

[mmmc_35]

Look rich isn't saying anything off base. The race talk is dumb. Watson had some questions. So did mahomes. Fans had the the QBs that year ranked different then the pros. I doubt Ryan Pace was racist. He was just wrong. Lawrence is about the top rated QB you will ever find. Those are not exactly "staggering opinions".

[The Marshall Plan]

One could make an argument that Lawrence and Watson are equal. In the MODERN NFL, Watson is the better prospect because of his mobility.

Yards:
Lawrence: 10,098
Watson: 10,168

TDs:
Lawrence: 90
Watson: 90

INTs:
Lawrence: 17
Watson: 32

Rating:
Lawrence 164.3
Watson: 157.5

Completion %:
Lawrence: 66.6% (OMG The Mark Of The Beast. J/K)
Watson: 67.4%

Rushing
Lawrence: 943 yards or 4.1 yards per attempt
Watson: 1,934 yards or 4.4 yards per attempt


In college, Watson had an INT problem v Lawrence. You can't argue that. Most other stats are equal. However, look at the rushing. Watson is a true dual threat which, if it were my team, would be what I would want as my QB.

When I their stats head to head, in Watson I see an elite college QB who didn't hit his ceiling. He had room to improve with the INTs. Good coaching, maturity and experience fixes that. I'm guessing a lot of those INTs were him trying to make things happen.

In Lawrence, I see an elite college QB who is at his peak. Meaning you're drafting a player who really can't improve all that much. He can only go down.

Yet Watson and Lawrence produced (without the INTs) nearly identical stats. Therefore, I'd draft Watson figuring he still has upside to his game.

If you could coach out the INTs from Watson and he still maintains that rushing ability, why would you rank Lawrence higher?

Lawrence better hope that OL at Jacksonville is really good or stays that way. Otherwise he's toast.

I still think that Lawrence = Matthew Stafford. A really good player on a bad team.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/pl ... nce-1.html

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/pl ... son-1.html

[dplank]

Good post. My only point was to highlight how ridiculous it was that pundits nit picked Watson in many cases down to a second round prospect, yet fawned over golden locks as a “generational” talent. All with the backdrop of giving Fields the exact same treatment as Watson. There’s no defense for it IMO.

[wab]

Good post. My only point was to highlight how ridiculous it was that pundits nit picked Watson in many cases down to a second round prospect, yet fawned over golden locks as a “generational” talent. All with the backdrop of giving Fields the exact same treatment as Watson. There’s no defense for it IMO.

It was actually Mahomes that some had in the 2nd. Watson was always mostly rated either 1 or 2 with Mitch.

Kizer was rated ahead of Mahomes in some situations.

[dplank]

Many had dropped him. WalterFootball had him as a 3rd round prospect and they listed these as some of his weaknesses:

Field vision
Working through progressions
Will need to learn working under center
Will need to learn working a NFL huddle
Needs development for a pro-style offense
College offense inflated his stats
College offense ran lot of plays he won't run in the NFL

Todd McShay said "The resume is amazing. The intangibles are off the charts. But he comes from a spread offense where he made half-field reads and was inconsistent with progressions."

Mel Kiper had him 34th on his big board, a second round grade. https://www.espn.com/nfl/draft2017/insi ... ts-ranking

So I'm just wondering, Trevor Lawrence played in the exact same offense. How come no one is dropping him for:

Field vision
Working through progressions
Will need to learn working under center
Will need to learn working a NFL huddle
Needs development for a pro-style offense
College offense inflated his stats
College offense ran lot of plays he won't run in the NFL

Nope. All they said is "clear #1, generational talent". Fuck that. I haven't wanted a player to fail this bad since Tim Tebow.

And again, this is all triggered by the backdrop that the same thing just happened to Fields. It's bullshit. AZ's post / video makes one VERY strong and VERY on point comment: The draft is highly based on narrative. And the narrative on goldilocks has been this GOAT prospect for so long that it's just stuck for better or worse.

I see Rob Johnson for Trevor Lawrence. All the tools, great hair, laid back attitude, but not the alpha dog leader you need to lead your team to a SB. Watson had that. Fields has that.

[RichH55]

One could make an argument that Lawrence and Watson are equal. In the MODERN NFL, Watson is the better prospect because of his mobility.

Yards:
Lawrence: 10,098
Watson: 10,168

TDs:
Lawrence: 90
Watson: 90

INTs:
Lawrence: 17
Watson: 32

Rating:
Lawrence 164.3
Watson: 157.5

Completion %:
Lawrence: 66.6% (OMG The Mark Of The Beast. J/K)
Watson: 67.4%

Rushing
Lawrence: 943 yards or 4.1 yards per attempt
Watson: 1,934 yards or 4.4 yards per attempt


In college, Watson had an INT problem v Lawrence. You can't argue that. Most other stats are equal. However, look at the rushing. Watson is a true dual threat which, if it were my team, would be what I would want as my QB.

When I their stats head to head, in Watson I see an elite college QB who didn't hit his ceiling. He had room to improve with the INTs. Good coaching, maturity and experience fixes that. I'm guessing a lot of those INTs were him trying to make things happen.

In Lawrence, I see an elite college QB who is at his peak. Meaning you're drafting a player who really can't improve all that much. He can only go down.

Yet Watson and Lawrence produced (without the INTs) nearly identical stats. Therefore, I'd draft Watson figuring he still has upside to his game.

If you could coach out the INTs from Watson and he still maintains that rushing ability, why would you rank Lawrence higher?

Lawrence better hope that OL at Jacksonville is really good or stays that way. Otherwise he's toast.

I still think that Lawrence = Matthew Stafford. A really good player on a bad team.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/pl ... nce-1.html

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/pl ... son-1.html

You know that Lawrence is actually a really good athlete too, right? And that Watson's 40 time was actually a bit underwhelming for what was expected right? (Again NOT Bad!). But he was very, very similar in 40 time to Mitch for example

Here's a fun clip that shows you Nothing! about how the guy is going to be as a QB - but its fun and he is a good athlete:


The Stats thing is still weird because of Covid

Lawrence only played part of a season in 2020 - when he was a Junior so in theory you SHOULD expect growth and his best year

And he was on pace for 4600 yards 36 TD, 7 INT - Give or Take


This shouldn't be a hot take but apparently it is around here : You should expect the guy to be better as a Junior than a True Freshman. If a guys numbers slip from Sophomore to Junior year - that is a worry (to at least SOME degree)

But not noting that is interesting when people show at least some bias - Watson only played some as a Freshman (and his ratio numbers were best as a Freshman)

If you take his Sophomore and Juniors years only - He averaged 1 INT a game.

That is not a good number folks. 1 INT A GAME

[RichH55]

And of course - if you were scouting Watson after his Sophomore year (which was Great btw - his best numbers).

You would say this: Wow, that was fun.

Here's what I'd like to see as a Junior to really boost your Draft stock to Top Tier

I'd like to see those INTs come down 13 is high especially with that schedule.

The runs are great but I'd want to see more plays from the Pocket - save the runs for bigger splashes. But Pocket play is what I care about. Because I do not plan to have Deshawn Run 200+ times a Season in the NFL (*)

(*) Seriously that was the number as a Sophomore for Watson

I'd also just like to see some natural progression - Improve Completion Percentage, take less sacks, better YPA, better YPC - Just general improvement - What you'd want from literally ANY QB prospect

(I am fine as an evaluator with less Running Yards overall - pick your spots - do as much damage as possible

Also - If I get to be choosy - I'd want him to blow away the Combine process. (Fields in theory did this BTW)

I want to see him be a GREAT Athlete and I want the Frame to look bigger - so I know I can have him Run some / Not worry as much about injury



Any of these unfair points in the least?

[RichH55]

And for those saying things like they both played at Clemson

Number of Runs as Sophomore and Juniors (*)
(*) Prorated for Lawrence's Junior year since he only played 2/3 of the season

Watson: 372
Lawrence: 205 (real number is: 171)

Watson had more Runs as a Sophomore than Lawrence had Sophomore/Junior years combined


These are markedly different versions of that Offense folks

[Yogi da Bear]

I think that Trevor Lawrence is Sunshine:

lol

[Arkansasbear]

I think that Trevor Lawrence is Sunshine:

lol

Good call.

[Arkansasbear]

Dude. Not reading all that, a simple acknowledgment that the claim that I “ignored 17 INT” is simply false is all that is needed. We can still disagree without devolving or misrepresentation.

If you re read my finishing sentences you’ll see that I can see why some may prefer Lawrence over Watson. What I can’t see is why one is “generational” and the other was dinged and nit picked into a second round grade. That was my point. I prefer Watson by a smidge because he beat Lawrence in 2 of the 3 most important categories: yards and TDs go to Watson, INTs goes to Lawrence.

I want Lawrence to fail.

Can I ask why you want Lawrence to fail? I want anyone that puts on a Green Bay jersey to fail. Same if they play for Minny. If they go to the Lions, I don't worry about them, it's the freaking Lions.

Guys that go to teams we basically never play? Don't really care. Heck, I kind of hope they play well as it means watching better football.

Don't remember who posted it, up Lawrence seems like a laid back, I don't care kinda guy (akin to a stoner). But he hasn't done anything to make me dislike him or think he was a jerk. "Johnny Football" different story. I wanted that guy to fall flat on his face and eat some humble pie (pretty much got my wish on that).

Is it a hate of Clemons? Or hate him because "everyone" is calling him a generational talent? He can't help that, seems like an odd reason to ding the guy.

[IE]

So I'm just wondering, Trevor Lawrence played in the exact same offense. How come no one is dropping him for:

Field vision
Working through progressions
Will need to learn working under center
Will need to learn working a NFL huddle
Needs development for a pro-style offense
College offense inflated his stats
College offense ran lot of plays he won't run in the NFL

Nope. All they said is "clear #1, generational talent". Fuck that. I haven't wanted a player to fail this bad since Tim Tebow.

And again, this is all triggered by the backdrop that the same thing just happened to Fields. It's bullshit.

It's just a total mystery, man. Nobody can figure out why this happens. Right?

(Note: to me the "generational" talent... which by definition means only ONE guy in a generation...already resides in KC)

[wab]

Dude. Not reading all that, a simple acknowledgment that the claim that I “ignored 17 INT” is simply false is all that is needed. We can still disagree without devolving or misrepresentation.

If you re read my finishing sentences you’ll see that I can see why some may prefer Lawrence over Watson. What I can’t see is why one is “generational” and the other was dinged and nit picked into a second round grade. That was my point. I prefer Watson by a smidge because he beat Lawrence in 2 of the 3 most important categories: yards and TDs go to Watson, INTs goes to Lawrence.

I want Lawrence to fail.

Can I ask why you want Lawrence to fail? I want anyone that puts on a Green Bay jersey to fail. Same if they play for Minny. If they go to the Lions, I don't worry about them, it's the freaking Lions.

Guys that go to teams we basically never play? Don't really care. Heck, I kind of hope they play well as it means watching better football.

Don't remember who posted it, up Lawrence seems like a laid back, I don't care kinda guy (akin to a stoner). But he hasn't done anything to make me dislike him or think he was a jerk. "Johnny Football" different story. I wanted that guy to fall flat on his face and eat some humble pie (pretty much got my wish on that).

Is it a hate of Clemons? Or hate him because "everyone" is calling him a generational talent? He can't help that, seems like an odd reason to ding the guy.

I'm also interested in why he wants him to fail.

And I'm with you, unless it's the Packers or the prospect is just an outright dirtbag, I generally don't want anyone to fail. I want Lawrence to succeed because it's better for football if he does, and watching better football is good for fans.

[IE]

He told you guys why.

[wab]

He told you guys why.

I must've missed it then. There's been a lot to unpack in all of their arguing.

[IE]

He told you guys why.

I must've missed it then. There's been a lot to unpack in all of their arguing.

LOL no shit I haven't even been reading it.

Plank explained that he doesn't like the inconsistent narrative (the biased hype), and Lawrence not eliciting "concerns" over the exact same factors that Watson and Fields have been dinged for - even though he could warrant those same concerns fairly. It isn't so much about Lawrence but the principle.

Not to put words in Plank's mouth but Lawrence's success would retroactively justify/bolster the unfair narrative. He wants the narrative to fail. And I do agree & sort of feel pissed that Fields missed out on a good $10MM by slipping due to a BS narrative. BUT...there's mixed emotions because that got him to US! We can make him that money by buying his stuff!

[AZ_Bearfan]

I hope the Fields vs Lawrence battle goes on for the next 15 years. Maybe they'll even get a shot at settling the debate like gentlemen in a Superbowl some day.

But I definitely thank Lawrence for just being alive and in the same town as Fields growing up. He's a large part of the chip on Fields shoulder.

[IE]

I hope the Fields vs Lawrence battle goes on for the next 15 years. Maybe they'll even get a shot at settling the debate like gentlemen in a Superbowl some day.

But I definitely thank Lawrence for just being alive and in the same town as Fields growing up. He's a large part of the chip on Fields shoulder.

Great point. Agreed.

Good luck to Lawrence ever getting to the Superbowl in the AFC. All that young QB talent holy crap.

[mmmc_35]

I must've missed it then. There's been a lot to unpack in all of their arguing.

LOL no shit I haven't even been reading it.

Plank explained that he doesn't like the inconsistent narrative (the biased hype), and Lawrence not eliciting "concerns" over the exact same factors that Watson and Fields have been dinged for - even though he could warrant those same concerns fairly. It isn't so much about Lawrence but the principle.

Not to put words in Plank's mouth but Lawrence's success would retroactively justify/bolster the unfair narrative. He wants the narrative to fail. And I do agree & sort of feel pissed that Fields missed out on a good $10MM by slipping due to a BS narrative. BUT...there's mixed emotions because that got him to US! We can make him that money by buying his stuff!

That 2 first round qbs came out if Clemson. One slightly better as a prospect. The other whom likes butt play?

[dplank]

I must've missed it then. There's been a lot to unpack in all of their arguing.

LOL no shit I haven't even been reading it.

Plank explained that he doesn't like the inconsistent narrative (the biased hype), and Lawrence not eliciting "concerns" over the exact same factors that Watson and Fields have been dinged for - even though he could warrant those same concerns fairly. It isn't so much about Lawrence but the principle.

Not to put words in Plank's mouth but Lawrence's success would retroactively justify/bolster the unfair narrative. He wants the narrative to fail. And I do agree & sort of feel pissed that Fields missed out on a good $10MM by slipping due to a BS narrative. BUT...there's mixed emotions because that got him to US! We can make him that money by buying his stuff!

This is correct thx. By all accounts Lawrence is a nice chill guy that I’d probably enjoy smoking a joint with. But this narrative is bullshit, and people STILL can’t let it go. Rich won’t even come off his Watson hate after the guy led the fucking league in passing, on one of the worst rosters in the league and losing Hopkins. That type of garbage tells me who you are, and it’s pervasive IMO. Weak minded, biased, unwilling to accept something that doesn’t fit into your narrow world view.

Also Fields is a Bear and Lawrence isn’t so fuck him lol. I’m rolling with my guy now that he’s a Bear.

[The Marshall Plan]

Can I ask why you want Lawrence to fail? I want anyone that puts on a Green Bay jersey to fail. Same if they play for Minny. If they go to the Lions, I don't worry about them, it's the freaking Lions.

Guys that go to teams we basically never play? Don't really care. Heck, I kind of hope they play well as it means watching better football.

Don't remember who posted it, up Lawrence seems like a laid back, I don't care kinda guy (akin to a stoner). But he hasn't done anything to make me dislike him or think he was a jerk. "Johnny Football" different story. I wanted that guy to fall flat on his face and eat some humble pie (pretty much got my wish on that).

Is it a hate of Clemons? Or hate him because "everyone" is calling him a generational talent? He can't help that, seems like an odd reason to ding the guy.

I'm also interested in why he wants him to fail.

And I'm with you, unless it's the Packers or the prospect is just an outright dirtbag, I generally don't want anyone to fail. I want Lawrence to succeed because it's better for football if he does, and watching better football is good for fans.

I want everyone who isn't a Chicago Bear to fail. Yeah sure some of them are entertaining, but whatever.

It's been 35 years or something. Can we win one now? Pretty please. With sugar on top.

[Rusty Trombagent]

these videos are silly, but i did laugh at "failed quarter back turned analyst chris simms"