I think we already have a low level starter, high-end backup on the roster. Two if you figure on the (very cheap) RFA extension of Allen. Why mess around getting another one, who doesn't even know the verbose Turner play calls, yet? Well...it would be much better than overpaying for Wilson/Watson/Rodger/Carr/Cousins, in that you're not overpaying. But still kind of pointless.
We should have a hiatus on this QB talk. Let's go extend Payne and TMac. Worry about the rest of the team. We destroy more value than we create with this QB sturm and drang. We should be more cagy, more passive, more sanguine, and more stoical. Less reactive. Less sportsnewstalk buzz driven.
I don't think Kyle Allen will be brought back unless they made a big trade for a vet like Wilson or Rodgers. I think Heinicke is a lock obviously. If they go for a vet like Jimmy G or a FA QB like Winston, Mariota or Trubisky, then I expect a rookie to be drafted in the first few rounds and be the 3rd QB in the room.
On Mariota - I think the appeal is that his upside is higher than Heinicke. We know what Heinicke and Kyle Allen are now, and we know they aren't good enough to lead this team to a super bowl. I'm not saying Mariota is, but he has a lot of tools that if he can put them together, could be a much better QB option than anything they currently have. At least with him, they're trying something different which could lead to a positive change rather than just recycling through Heinicke and Allen over and over.
You could actually argue that Heinicke is more unknown/growable than MM. He has less starts in the League. I'm not, per se, arguing it, but it is arguable.
I mean, he was out of the League and at least proved that he could get a backup job. So it's not like the previous observation of him was omniscient. So why should a year of observation be omniscient either? People aren't giving up on Lawrence and Wilson yet are they?
Again, I'm not per se making the argument. I just don't think one can be so certain (about upside or about writing someone off) as most sportstalkers and fans are. It's like the 12 month future price of oil. The 95% confidence interval has very wide bands ($40-$150). Of course, you need to have an opinion on the mean and make investments based on that mean expectation. But the degree of uncertainty is routinely underestimated in discussions.
Difference is that while Heinicke has less starts in the league, he’s been with this staff for pretty much his entire career. Been with Turner in Minnesota, Carolina and now here, With Rivera for the last two stops. So they know what he is by now and how he works within that system. Mariota is more well known by the league because of his starts, but we don’t necessarily know how well he’d work under this staff. He could just mesh well with Turner and this system and finally put all those tools together into something more than just tools.
It is unknown and doesn’t mean it will lead to anything better than what they have. Could well be the case that they don’t mesh and the staff can’t tap into those raw tools, but at least it would be trying something different with a view to improving instead of another year where we know Heinicke and Allen aren’t good enough to get it done.
And on the overall topic of QB talk, it kinda has to be the main focus because Rivera could be on the hot seat this year and a QB is the thing that can really give him an advantage and long term job security to see out his rebuild. He's also constantly stated QB is the most important thing and they're going to take some big swings. If they are involved in a big trade, that will impact what else they can do and what other needs they might have - Trading Sweat and picks for Wilson, for example, will create a need at DE and they'd have less picks to fill that need. But if they don't make a trade, then QB remains the big need.
I really enjoy your articles and the work put into them...and the learning from looking at clips. But I really don't think you can analyze QBs (maybe even players in general) with this sort of clip-based article. Every player will have a mix of good and bad plays. To analyze their performance, some statistical argument (QBR, RTG, PFF, your own) is needed.
I mean...sure MM was pinpoint on that clip you showed. But every QB is sometimes pinpoint. And sometimes not pinpoint. What matters is the % pinpointiness. (Same applies with other traits, good and bad.)
I actually think these clip type articles are better for explaining schemes and concepts. Here's what's different between Gruden and Shanahan, for instance. Even there, there's issues of percentages. But at least we learn some concepts, get some analysis of the line movement and the like, that TV analysts and sportstalkbloviators like Chris Russell ignore.
Ideally I'd love to be able to just break down each individual play within the context of the game and that would give the most fair evaluation of a QB, or any individual player. But that would lead to articles that are 30k words long, have 40 clips and take a week to read. For the sake of brevity, I try to condense down what I see when watching a player broader points and that's tough because I usually have 15-20 clips I'd like to use to be more detailed and show more examples, but typically end up with 6-10 clips in an article to stop it from running far too long.
Stats can help with analysing performances, but they can also lack context and not tell the whole story. To use your example with accuracy, completion percentage is widely used to show accuracy, but that can be thrown off by drops or tough catches. A throw on the money could be dropped and count against a QB, but a bad throw behind a receiver could be caught and count for a QB. When I showed a clip or two of someone with great accuracy and anticipation, I do so not just based on the one or two clips, but because there are typically multiple examples of that level of accuracy in each game. I just can't cut together 10 throws in a single clip and break down each throw because it would take far too long.
The upside comparison that is obvious is Steve Young. Not sure how old he was by the time he got to SF but Walsh obviously saw huge potential despite his failure in Tampa and his time in USFL
He developed a HOF resume under Walsh. So it does happen
More likely Mariota is simply a bridge to get you from TH to a long term starter.
Maybe he has better tools but isn’t even as good in terms of W-L? Either way you have little to lose signing him because he won’t cost much, won’t prevent you from drafting a qb,
Cannot realistically demand a long term deal, won’t necessarily prevent TH from beating him out as starter, and best case scenario (like Foles) won’t prevent you from turning the offense over to a draft Qb in year 2 if the younger guy is ready to take over
The obvious negative is it most likely results in another .500 level team even with a good draft and free agency period
The obvious point is that this kind of move should have been made in year 1 of RRs tenure here, not year 3. And looking up at Dallas and Philly in the standings won’t be fun. If the Giants are much improved the seat under RR could get white hot even with the optimism that a draft Qb will bring
This doesn’t even count the dysfunction that will happen if RR leaves or is replaced after another poor year leaving a draft Qb behind him
All the more why RR is going to swing for the fences this year and Mariota isn’t That Guy
Yeah, the issue with this kind of move in year 1 was that Washington had just spent a first round pick on Dwayne Haskins and he hadn't had a fair chance to show what he could do in his rookie season. We obviously know now looking back that it would end up being a waste, but at the time it made perfect sense to give Haskins a chance under a new regime to see if he could mature and develop.
I do agree though that Rivera will be on the hot seat this season, especially if he fails to find a QB. Last year was really the year to take a shot on a rookie, but as I said at the time, you can't force a first-round QB if you don't love one and clearly they didn't or they'd have done more to move up for their guy. That was the right approach to take but it means they have to be ready to give up more for the right guy this year and if they fail to land a guy in year 3, it's hard to see them being given a chance to find one in year 4.
I honestly think that in Fitzmagic Rivera thought he had a qb who could at least get him to the playoffs consistently until they got a draft qb he believed in.. He had no intention of starting Heinicke, despite his heroics in the playoff game against Tampa. Fitz didnt have a significant injury history and was convincing when he claimed to be playing the best Qb of his career.. Rivera bought in and annointed him the starter even before the season.. Fate has a way of throwing you curveballs and Rivera didnt get what he wanted last year.. I think he has to go all in for a veteran qb this year, and has to be lucky enough that this guy isnt dealt a season ending injury.. Snyder isnt exactly in the best position to replace Rivera this year anyway and Gibbs recommended Rivera be given a 5 year window, so the real problem Rivera has is not with management, but with the fans... I expect that if the team starts poorly as they did last year, one of the coordinators gets thrown under the bus.. He simply cannot afford another poor season, even if he drafts a QB in round 1 this year.. Things could get very ugly, very soon for him
I think we already have a low level starter, high-end backup on the roster. Two if you figure on the (very cheap) RFA extension of Allen. Why mess around getting another one, who doesn't even know the verbose Turner play calls, yet? Well...it would be much better than overpaying for Wilson/Watson/Rodger/Carr/Cousins, in that you're not overpaying. But still kind of pointless.
We should have a hiatus on this QB talk. Let's go extend Payne and TMac. Worry about the rest of the team. We destroy more value than we create with this QB sturm and drang. We should be more cagy, more passive, more sanguine, and more stoical. Less reactive. Less sportsnewstalk buzz driven.
I don't think Kyle Allen will be brought back unless they made a big trade for a vet like Wilson or Rodgers. I think Heinicke is a lock obviously. If they go for a vet like Jimmy G or a FA QB like Winston, Mariota or Trubisky, then I expect a rookie to be drafted in the first few rounds and be the 3rd QB in the room.
On Mariota - I think the appeal is that his upside is higher than Heinicke. We know what Heinicke and Kyle Allen are now, and we know they aren't good enough to lead this team to a super bowl. I'm not saying Mariota is, but he has a lot of tools that if he can put them together, could be a much better QB option than anything they currently have. At least with him, they're trying something different which could lead to a positive change rather than just recycling through Heinicke and Allen over and over.
You could actually argue that Heinicke is more unknown/growable than MM. He has less starts in the League. I'm not, per se, arguing it, but it is arguable.
I mean, he was out of the League and at least proved that he could get a backup job. So it's not like the previous observation of him was omniscient. So why should a year of observation be omniscient either? People aren't giving up on Lawrence and Wilson yet are they?
Again, I'm not per se making the argument. I just don't think one can be so certain (about upside or about writing someone off) as most sportstalkers and fans are. It's like the 12 month future price of oil. The 95% confidence interval has very wide bands ($40-$150). Of course, you need to have an opinion on the mean and make investments based on that mean expectation. But the degree of uncertainty is routinely underestimated in discussions.
Difference is that while Heinicke has less starts in the league, he’s been with this staff for pretty much his entire career. Been with Turner in Minnesota, Carolina and now here, With Rivera for the last two stops. So they know what he is by now and how he works within that system. Mariota is more well known by the league because of his starts, but we don’t necessarily know how well he’d work under this staff. He could just mesh well with Turner and this system and finally put all those tools together into something more than just tools.
It is unknown and doesn’t mean it will lead to anything better than what they have. Could well be the case that they don’t mesh and the staff can’t tap into those raw tools, but at least it would be trying something different with a view to improving instead of another year where we know Heinicke and Allen aren’t good enough to get it done.
And on the overall topic of QB talk, it kinda has to be the main focus because Rivera could be on the hot seat this year and a QB is the thing that can really give him an advantage and long term job security to see out his rebuild. He's also constantly stated QB is the most important thing and they're going to take some big swings. If they are involved in a big trade, that will impact what else they can do and what other needs they might have - Trading Sweat and picks for Wilson, for example, will create a need at DE and they'd have less picks to fill that need. But if they don't make a trade, then QB remains the big need.
Oh I get it, that you're doing what people are interested in. I just hate that RR is so unBelicheckian.
Bump. ;-)
I really enjoy your articles and the work put into them...and the learning from looking at clips. But I really don't think you can analyze QBs (maybe even players in general) with this sort of clip-based article. Every player will have a mix of good and bad plays. To analyze their performance, some statistical argument (QBR, RTG, PFF, your own) is needed.
I mean...sure MM was pinpoint on that clip you showed. But every QB is sometimes pinpoint. And sometimes not pinpoint. What matters is the % pinpointiness. (Same applies with other traits, good and bad.)
I actually think these clip type articles are better for explaining schemes and concepts. Here's what's different between Gruden and Shanahan, for instance. Even there, there's issues of percentages. But at least we learn some concepts, get some analysis of the line movement and the like, that TV analysts and sportstalkbloviators like Chris Russell ignore.
Oh...and REDSKINS!
Ideally I'd love to be able to just break down each individual play within the context of the game and that would give the most fair evaluation of a QB, or any individual player. But that would lead to articles that are 30k words long, have 40 clips and take a week to read. For the sake of brevity, I try to condense down what I see when watching a player broader points and that's tough because I usually have 15-20 clips I'd like to use to be more detailed and show more examples, but typically end up with 6-10 clips in an article to stop it from running far too long.
Stats can help with analysing performances, but they can also lack context and not tell the whole story. To use your example with accuracy, completion percentage is widely used to show accuracy, but that can be thrown off by drops or tough catches. A throw on the money could be dropped and count against a QB, but a bad throw behind a receiver could be caught and count for a QB. When I showed a clip or two of someone with great accuracy and anticipation, I do so not just based on the one or two clips, but because there are typically multiple examples of that level of accuracy in each game. I just can't cut together 10 throws in a single clip and break down each throw because it would take far too long.
Mark, you are a super classy guy. Do great stuff. Remember you from HH.
The upside comparison that is obvious is Steve Young. Not sure how old he was by the time he got to SF but Walsh obviously saw huge potential despite his failure in Tampa and his time in USFL
He developed a HOF resume under Walsh. So it does happen
More likely Mariota is simply a bridge to get you from TH to a long term starter.
Maybe he has better tools but isn’t even as good in terms of W-L? Either way you have little to lose signing him because he won’t cost much, won’t prevent you from drafting a qb,
Cannot realistically demand a long term deal, won’t necessarily prevent TH from beating him out as starter, and best case scenario (like Foles) won’t prevent you from turning the offense over to a draft Qb in year 2 if the younger guy is ready to take over
The obvious negative is it most likely results in another .500 level team even with a good draft and free agency period
The obvious point is that this kind of move should have been made in year 1 of RRs tenure here, not year 3. And looking up at Dallas and Philly in the standings won’t be fun. If the Giants are much improved the seat under RR could get white hot even with the optimism that a draft Qb will bring
This doesn’t even count the dysfunction that will happen if RR leaves or is replaced after another poor year leaving a draft Qb behind him
All the more why RR is going to swing for the fences this year and Mariota isn’t That Guy
Yeah, the issue with this kind of move in year 1 was that Washington had just spent a first round pick on Dwayne Haskins and he hadn't had a fair chance to show what he could do in his rookie season. We obviously know now looking back that it would end up being a waste, but at the time it made perfect sense to give Haskins a chance under a new regime to see if he could mature and develop.
I do agree though that Rivera will be on the hot seat this season, especially if he fails to find a QB. Last year was really the year to take a shot on a rookie, but as I said at the time, you can't force a first-round QB if you don't love one and clearly they didn't or they'd have done more to move up for their guy. That was the right approach to take but it means they have to be ready to give up more for the right guy this year and if they fail to land a guy in year 3, it's hard to see them being given a chance to find one in year 4.
I honestly think that in Fitzmagic Rivera thought he had a qb who could at least get him to the playoffs consistently until they got a draft qb he believed in.. He had no intention of starting Heinicke, despite his heroics in the playoff game against Tampa. Fitz didnt have a significant injury history and was convincing when he claimed to be playing the best Qb of his career.. Rivera bought in and annointed him the starter even before the season.. Fate has a way of throwing you curveballs and Rivera didnt get what he wanted last year.. I think he has to go all in for a veteran qb this year, and has to be lucky enough that this guy isnt dealt a season ending injury.. Snyder isnt exactly in the best position to replace Rivera this year anyway and Gibbs recommended Rivera be given a 5 year window, so the real problem Rivera has is not with management, but with the fans... I expect that if the team starts poorly as they did last year, one of the coordinators gets thrown under the bus.. He simply cannot afford another poor season, even if he drafts a QB in round 1 this year.. Things could get very ugly, very soon for him