ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum (http://www.coltfreaks.com/forum/index.php)
-   Indianapolis Colts Discussion (http://www.coltfreaks.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Darnold on the block? (http://www.coltfreaks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=109472)

Chaka 10-19-2020 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maniac (Post 172998)
Elways numbers were good in his 3rd year. almost 4000 yards and 22 TD's, just high INT's. They also had a record of 12-2 and 11-5 in his 2nd and 3rd years..

True, Elway’s number weren’t too bad, but a mediocre QBR of 70.2 if you believe it that sort of stuff. Completion rate of only 54% too. Led the league in attempts also, so put in context maybe the TD and yardage numbers aren’t all that great. Darnold’s would have been as good or better last year if extrapolated out to 16 games.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maniac (Post 172998)
Aikman is a poor choice. He never was a big stats QB. He had Emmitt. He only had one season where he threw for over 20 TD's. .

He’s a hall of fame QB, and the fact that he had Emmitt is kind of my point – Darnold doesn’t have an Emmitt and is left to do everything himself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maniac (Post 172998)
Young sitting behind Montana is also a poor example. He also only played in 5 games his first year in Tampa. His second year in Tampa he also ran for 425 yards and 5 TD's in addition to his passing. After that he sat behind Montana and played in spot duty..

I’ll agree Young isn’t necessarily a perfect fit to my analysis, but I added him more as an example of how changing organizations can vastly improve a player’s performance.

Dam8610 10-20-2020 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maniac (Post 172933)
Darnold is 3 years into the NFL. If he's not developed by now, then he's not going to. He sucks. You can blame the jets if you want, but good players will become good players despite a bad organization. He isn't any better now than when he was a rookie.

He's 24 and has played for a team that has given him almost no help. Several hall of fame QBs didn't have their first good season as a pro until their age 25 season. I'm not saying Darnold will figure it out, but it's also not as impossible as you're making it out to be.

Dam8610 10-20-2020 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maniac (Post 172983)
Yes, this is still year 3 for Darnold. He's currently on pace for 12 TD's and 16 INT's for this year.

Multiple mocks have the Colts taking Trey Lance in the draft. I would rather use a draft pick on him than give up a high pick for Darnold.

Either way, we'll see what Ballard does soon.

I don't see Ballard and Reich staking their careers on Trey Lance. He has an NFL arm but he's too inconsistent. Looks like he'd also have the problem Baker Mayfield has where he's not good if you force him to be a pocket passer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by albany ed (Post 173000)
This was the post that started this thread. Darnold would be a risk, but IMO, if this is what it took to get him, it's a risk worth taking.

That seems like a good risk, but it would depend on how the FO feels about him now, as well as how they felt about him coming out of college.

Chromeburn 10-20-2020 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maniac (Post 172973)
I'm not fudging, I clearly stated 3rd year starting, because the experience starting is what is important. I showed their 3rd year starting. This is Darnold's 3rd year starting. It's on equal footing.

Moon did develop late. He's one of the rare cases. I certainly wouldn't give up high draft picks on the hopes that Darnold is another case where he beats the statistical odds against that happening. If we do and he ends up being a shitty QB for us for several years, then it's going to suck continuing down that path of QB hell.

Steve Young was a late bloomer also I believe.

Chromeburn 10-20-2020 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maniac (Post 172983)
Yes, this is still year 3 for Darnold. He's currently on pace for 12 TD's and 16 INT's for this year.

Multiple mocks have the Colts taking Trey Lance in the draft. I would rather use a draft pick on him than give up a high pick for Darnold.

Either way, we'll see what Ballard does soon.

I’m not a huge fan of Lance. His accuracy isn’t great and that is usually a good barometer for nfl success. I think Dodd’s got caught scouting him. So that is why he is on everyone’s radar. Still Reich coached Wentz and might like the coaching from that school and that kind of QB.

YDFL Commish 10-20-2020 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chromeburn (Post 173066)
I’m not a huge fan of Lance. His accuracy isn’t great and that is usually a good barometer for nfl success. I think Dodd’s got caught scouting him. So that is why he is on everyone’s radar. Still Reich coached Wentz and might like the coaching from that school and that kind of QB.

I like the kid out of Florida, Kyle Trask.

Chromeburn 10-21-2020 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YDFL Commish (Post 173091)
I like the kid out of Florida, Kyle Trask.

He started out hot but has come back to earth. His decision making is questionable. I like Jamie Newman if I had to pick an SEC QB. Would like to see where he is at the end of the year. Mac Jones has been rising also.

Dam8610 10-21-2020 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chromeburn (Post 173066)
I’m not a huge fan of Lance. His accuracy isn’t great and that is usually a good barometer for nfl success. I think Dodd’s got caught scouting him. So that is why he is on everyone’s radar. Still Reich coached Wentz and might like the coaching from that school and that kind of QB.

Do you have an example of a game that illustrates this? Because my biggest issues with him are his quickness to give up on passing and his general reading of defenses (he sometimes misses wide open looks). But I've generally seen an NFL arm with good ball placement in his film.

Puck 10-21-2020 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chromeburn (Post 173148)
He started out hot but has come back to earth. His decision making is questionable. I like Jamie Newman if I had to pick an SEC QB. Would like to see where he is at the end of the year. Mac Jones has been rising also.

I too. like Jaime Newman. Maybe his draft stock will drop due to skipping the season

Chromeburn 10-21-2020 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dam8610 (Post 173157)
Do you have an example of a game that illustrates this? Because my biggest issues with him are his quickness to give up on passing and his general reading of defenses (he sometimes misses wide open looks). But I've generally seen an NFL arm with good ball placement in his film.

So Lance will be pretty dependent on his pro day and combine. But he is such an athlete that those should be in his favor.

But my concern is his accuracy and I’m going off the pff metric explained here: QB accuracy metric explained. I think it is a better evaluation tool than just attempts / completions which really doesn’t tell the whole story. Using that metric his completion is 50% which doesn’t project well to the NFL where you need to be very accurate. Burrow last year posted the highest accuracy rating they have had since they started using this, which is partly why I was so bullish on him. Then the one game he played this season he was only at 28% which wasn’t the best debut. I don’t like using one game as a measure but it’s all we have to go on.

He certainly has the arm strength and his running will be a definite asset. Defenses have a lot of trouble with QBs of his type. But I wanted 60% accuracy from him, that is usually the break point. And I just haven’t seen it yet.

Dam8610 10-22-2020 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chromeburn (Post 173185)
So Lance will be pretty dependent on his pro day and combine. But he is such an athlete that those should be in his favor.

But my concern is his accuracy and I’m going off the pff metric explained here: QB accuracy metric explained. I think it is a better evaluation tool than just attempts / completions which really doesn’t tell the whole story. Using that metric his completion is 50% which doesn’t project well to the NFL where you need to be very accurate. Burrow last year posted the highest accuracy rating they have had since they started using this, which is partly why I was so bullish on him. Then the one game he played this season he was only at 28% which wasn’t the best debut. I don’t like using one game as a measure but it’s all we have to go on.

He certainly has the arm strength and his running will be a definite asset. Defenses have a lot of trouble with QBs of his type. But I wanted 60% accuracy from him, that is usually the break point. And I just haven’t seen it yet.

Not a big fan of PFF, and this yet again feels like it relies too much on subjectivity. They're assuming they know the route every time, and while a trained eye will get that right most of the time, it's not going to be right every time and therefore skewing is going to happen. I also believe PFF tends to let their biases creep in because most of their analysis is subjective.

One example where I think this grading system could get it wrong: There was a play in a game I watched where Lance had a TE running upfield. This TE was NFL open, he had a defender closing but they had their back turned to the QB and were on the TE's inside shoulder. An NFL throw is needed, and Lance makes what is in my opinion the perfect throw: he throws high to the TE's outside shoulder, putting the ball in a position where only his receiver can get it. The ball hits off the TE's hands. To me, PFF would grade that as a "high" throw or maybe even an "overthrow", because the TE had to go up for it and it was high and to the outside of the receiver. But based on the play and what was happening, it was the perfect throw, as it gave the defender no chance at an INT and would've been an easy first down had the TE caught a ball that hit his hands.

Chromeburn 10-22-2020 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puck (Post 173172)
I too. like Jaime Newman. Maybe his draft stock will drop due to skipping the season

Yeah I’m sure he will. I was looking forward to seeing what he could do with Georgia’s talent. Hard to place these QBs now outside of Lawrence and Fields. The range i think he is at is late first to third round.

Chromeburn 10-22-2020 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dam8610 (Post 173209)
Not a big fan of PFF, and this yet again feels like it relies too much on subjectivity. They're assuming they know the route every time, and while a trained eye will get that right most of the time, it's not going to be right every time and therefore skewing is going to happen. I also believe PFF tends to let their biases creep in because most of their analysis is subjective.

One example where I think this grading system could get it wrong: There was a play in a game I watched where Lance had a TE running upfield. This TE was NFL open, he had a defender closing but they had their back turned to the QB and were on the TE's inside shoulder. An NFL throw is needed, and Lance makes what is in my opinion the perfect throw: he throws high to the TE's outside shoulder, putting the ball in a position where only his receiver can get it. The ball hits off the TE's hands. To me, PFF would grade that as a "high" throw or maybe even an "overthrow", because the TE had to go up for it and it was high and to the outside of the receiver. But based on the play and what was happening, it was the perfect throw, as it gave the defender no chance at an INT and would've been an easy first down had the TE caught a ball that hit his hands.

Perhaps, I tend to pick and choose what I like about pff. But judging ball placement isn’t all that hard. I’m sure they take placement into consideration when coverage is present. In fact I know they do because Burrow often had to put it in a position where only his WR could get it and that was not in that strike zone, and he had a great accuracy rating. Early in Peyton’s career he started throwing balls low just so there was little chance of int and to cut his int’s down. There was little chance of Yac with those throws but I knew he was doing it intentionally.

I’ve see Lance throw outs with great strength and precision. The problem is that he doesn’t do that consistently. Those issues can be fixed, we have seen Josh Allen and the Ravens QB improve. But if given a preference I would like to start with a guy with high accuracy. He does have a hitch in his delivery and it draws it out. He will need to fix that in the pros. His running will be an asset as long as he protects himself. But as we have seen with Andrew and Cam Newton, no matter how big you are taking hits will knock you out of the game. Be like Russel Wilson, not Cam Newton.

Dam8610 10-22-2020 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chromeburn (Post 173223)
Perhaps, I tend to pick and choose what I like about pff. But judging ball placement isn’t all that hard. I’m sure they take placement into consideration when coverage is present. In fact I know they do because Burrow often had to put it in a position where only his WR could get it and that was not in that strike zone, and he had a great accuracy rating. Early in Peyton’s career he started throwing balls low just so there was little chance of int and to cut his int’s down. There was little chance of Yac with those throws but I knew he was doing it intentionally.

I’ve see Lance throw outs with great strength and precision. The problem is that he doesn’t do that consistently. Those issues can be fixed, we have seen Josh Allen and the Ravens QB improve. But if given a preference I would like to start with a guy with high accuracy. He does have a hitch in his delivery and it draws it out. He will need to fix that in the pros. His running will be an asset as long as he protects himself. But as we have seen with Andrew and Cam Newton, no matter how big you are taking hits will knock you out of the game. Be like Russel Wilson, not Cam Newton.

Subjectively picking subjective statistics to like is certainly fair. But that's where I say their biases creep in. I feel like especially with PFF, once they've decided a player fits a certain profile, they make their statistics fit the profile rather than being as objective as possible and letting the numbers tell the story.

I also like accuracy in QBs, but as you point out, Lance does this well already in several situations, and you can't have a 42 TD 0 INT season at any level without having some pretty solid ball placement skills. Russell Wilson is also the model I would look to in Trey Lance, specifically getting him to stop abandoning the pass so quickly and easily. That's my biggest problem with him, due to the injury risk.

Chromeburn 10-23-2020 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dam8610 (Post 173271)
Subjectively picking subjective statistics to like is certainly fair. But that's where I say their biases creep in. I feel like especially with PFF, once they've decided a player fits a certain profile, they make their statistics fit the profile rather than being as objective as possible and letting the numbers tell the story.

I also like accuracy in QBs, but as you point out, Lance does this well already in several situations, and you can't have a 42 TD 0 INT season at any level without having some pretty solid ball placement skills. Russell Wilson is also the model I would look to in Trey Lance, specifically getting him to stop abandoning the pass so quickly and easily. That's my biggest problem with him, due to the injury risk.

You say it’s subjective. I think it’s well explained and makes sense as a more in depth evaluation. Is he a super accurate QB? No. That is not what he is known for. Even the regular way of estimating accuracy, he is below his peers. Do you have an example of their bias in action?

Also he had 28 tds throwing, 14 rushing. It’s not like NDSU is playing top competition. Their closest game was against South Dakota State. The one game they had this year against Central Arkansas he threw an int. I’m not saying there isn’t stuff to like about him. There are good tools to work with and he does have promise. I just don’t know if he is a top five QB like some are making him out to be. And I’m not sure about his accuracy which I think is the most important trait for a QB.

Dam8610 10-23-2020 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chromeburn (Post 173287)
You say it’s subjective. I think it’s well explained and makes sense as a more in depth evaluation. Is he a super accurate QB? No. That is not what he is known for. Even the regular way of estimating accuracy, he is below his peers. Do you have an example of their bias in action?

Also he had 28 tds throwing, 14 rushing. It’s not like NDSU is playing top competition. Their closest game was against South Dakota State. The one game they had this year against Central Arkansas he threw an int. I’m not saying there isn’t stuff to like about him. There are good tools to work with and he does have promise. I just don’t know if he is a top five QB like some are making him out to be. And I’m not sure about his accuracy which I think is the most important trait for a QB.

I say it's subjective because their main statistic that they're famous for relies on them "grading" each play for each player, with no objective criteria given for how a player earns each level of grade on a given play. That means they're going to inherently be prone to giving players they like more positive grades than players they don't like. Also each individual grader might grade the same play for the same player differently. For the particular accuracy metric you shared, the way I could easily see biases creeping into that is that they've defined target areas and what makes a bad throw, an okay throw, a good throw, and a great throw. But what if the ball placement is in between target areas? How does that get graded? Dependence on the grader and their personal biases is once again high. It's easy to imagine one of their graders dinging a QB like Peyton Manning early in his career hard for doing something you described positively with good reason. Low throws and underthrows are bad in their grading system, but a QB doing it to cut down on INTs is doing a good thing, we seem to agree on that. If PFF's grader just despised underthrown footballs or that QB for some reason, it's very easy for him or her to ding his accuracy heavily in that grading system. I don't have proof of their biases in action other than they have no objective criteria by which their numbers are easily reproducible.

I think you and I mostly agree on Lance. The biggest area of disagreement seems to be accuracy. Of course level of competition is a concern, but productivity mitigates that somewhat. My biggest concern is that he tries to play like Cam Newton but looks more like RG3. He needs to use his mobility to escape pressure and keep plays alive, but scrambling should be the last resort. That's my biggest reason for being hesitant to put him with the top QBs in the class, and as I said earlier, I don't know that Ballard and Reich will want to stake their careers on this kid.

JAFF 10-23-2020 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chromeburn (Post 173287)
You say it’s subjective. I think it’s well explained and makes sense as a more in depth evaluation. Is he a super accurate QB? No. That is not what he is known for. Even the regular way of estimating accuracy, he is below his peers. Do you have an example of their bias in action?

Also he had 28 tds throwing, 14 rushing. It’s not like NDSU is playing top competition. Their closest game was against South Dakota State. The one game they had this year against Central Arkansas he threw an int. I’m not saying there isn’t stuff to like about him. There are good tools to work with and he does have promise. I just don’t know if he is a top five QB like some are making him out to be. And I’m not sure about his accuracy which I think is the most important trait for a QB.

At this point walk away. Not that you are wrong, you dont want to waste another minute of time better spent Fill in the blank.

Anything you chose for fill in the blank will be better time spent. That includes disarming WWII unexploded bombs

Chromeburn 10-24-2020 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dam8610 (Post 173297)
I say it's subjective because their main statistic that they're famous for relies on them "grading" each play for each player, with no objective criteria given for how a player earns each level of grade on a given play. That means they're going to inherently be prone to giving players they like more positive grades than players they don't like. Also each individual grader might grade the same play for the same player differently. For the particular accuracy metric you shared, the way I could easily see biases creeping into that is that they've defined target areas and what makes a bad throw, an okay throw, a good throw, and a great throw. But what if the ball placement is in between target areas? How does that get graded? Dependence on the grader and their personal biases is once again high. It's easy to imagine one of their graders dinging a QB like Peyton Manning early in his career hard for doing something you described positively with good reason. Low throws and underthrows are bad in their grading system, but a QB doing it to cut down on INTs is doing a good thing, we seem to agree on that. If PFF's grader just despised underthrown footballs or that QB for some reason, it's very easy for him or her to ding his accuracy heavily in that grading system. I don't have proof of their biases in action other than they have no objective criteria by which their numbers are easily reproducible.

I think you and I mostly agree on Lance. The biggest area of disagreement seems to be accuracy. Of course level of competition is a concern, but productivity mitigates that somewhat. My biggest concern is that he tries to play like Cam Newton but looks more like RG3. He needs to use his mobility to escape pressure and keep plays alive, but scrambling should be the last resort. That's my biggest reason for being hesitant to put him with the top QBs in the class, and as I said earlier, I don't know that Ballard and Reich will want to stake their careers on this kid.



I see what you are saying. As technology increases, high-resolution cameras with high frame rates, the ability to pause and examine, I see this as the natural evolution of analyzation. We do this every game our selves when we see a well-thrown ball vs a bad throw. You asked about balls thrown in-between zones which is a good point, and it probably depends on which side the ball is more on. But the zones aren't hit/miss it's accurate/less accurate/inaccurate etc. If it was either-or, that is where a bias could hurt you more, but the levels of increment minimize the impact of a bias.

Remember they are:
  • absolving quarterbacks from getting downgraded for throwaways, spikes, batted passes and plays in which they're hit while throwing.
  • Did the QB put the slant route on the front number for optimum yards-after-the-catch opportunity? Did he hit him with an accurate pass on his frame? Did he leave it in a catchable spot, but in a less-than-desirable YAC location?
  • are also careful to add proper context to passes that appear to be off-target but are thrown away from the leverage of the defense. Such passes get an “away from coverage” designation that falls into the proper bucket of accurate passes.
Manning would have fallen into the last two categories there, which he was doing on purpose. I would assume they would know that if the announcer knew it and talked about it in-game. So Manning would fall into that area of accurate passes as well.

Finally, the whole argument depends on the presence of bias in the system, but there is no evidence of any bias. Just because there is a possibility for something to be corrupted doesn't mean it is. For example, the president and the GOP has lawsuits in every swing state trying to remove mail-in ballots arguing that there is corruption. They have not won a single case though because there is no actual evidence that there is mass mail-in voter corruption (that isn't caught) to discard the system, just their theories. (and before this turns into a political debate for some of you, yes I know the examples the pres said in the debate the other night, all those have been explained and you can look it up.) Bias would ruin the results if the same person did all the evaluations for one QB and no one else and no one checked the results. OR, the entire organization is biased against that QB and everyone working on that QB skewed the results. I find either unlikely because PFF is staking their reputation on the accuracy of their analyzations. If someone found bias it would taint everything the company does. Therefore they have a vested interest in being impartial. I would change my mind if something did actually come out about it. But I can't assume it is happening because it could happen.

Yup we largely agree in Lance, except for the accuracy issue.

Dam8610 10-25-2020 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chromeburn (Post 173362)
I see what you are saying. As technology increases, high-resolution cameras with high frame rates, the ability to pause and examine, I see this as the natural evolution of analyzation. We do this every game our selves when we see a well-thrown ball vs a bad throw. You asked about balls thrown in-between zones which is a good point, and it probably depends on which side the ball is more on. But the zones aren't hit/miss it's accurate/less accurate/inaccurate etc. If it was either-or, that is where a bias could hurt you more, but the levels of increment minimize the impact of a bias.

Remember they are:
  • absolving quarterbacks from getting downgraded for throwaways, spikes, batted passes and plays in which they're hit while throwing.
  • Did the QB put the slant route on the front number for optimum yards-after-the-catch opportunity? Did he hit him with an accurate pass on his frame? Did he leave it in a catchable spot, but in a less-than-desirable YAC location?
  • are also careful to add proper context to passes that appear to be off-target but are thrown away from the leverage of the defense. Such passes get an “away from coverage” designation that falls into the proper bucket of accurate passes.
Manning would have fallen into the last two categories there, which he was doing on purpose. I would assume they would know that if the announcer knew it and talked about it in-game. So Manning would fall into that area of accurate passes as well.

Finally, the whole argument depends on the presence of bias in the system, but there is no evidence of any bias. Just because there is a possibility for something to be corrupted doesn't mean it is. For example, the president and the GOP has lawsuits in every swing state trying to remove mail-in ballots arguing that there is corruption. They have not won a single case though because there is no actual evidence that there is mass mail-in voter corruption (that isn't caught) to discard the system, just their theories. (and before this turns into a political debate for some of you, yes I know the examples the pres said in the debate the other night, all those have been explained and you can look it up.) Bias would ruin the results if the same person did all the evaluations for one QB and no one else and no one checked the results. OR, the entire organization is biased against that QB and everyone working on that QB skewed the results. I find either unlikely because PFF is staking their reputation on the accuracy of their analyzations. If someone found bias it would taint everything the company does. Therefore they have a vested interest in being impartial. I would change my mind if something did actually come out about it. But I can't assume it is happening because it could happen.

Yup we largely agree in Lance, except for the accuracy issue.

I have no doubt that PFF is trying their best to get it right, but this boils down to the problem I've always had with them: the subjectivity in their analysis in my opinion creates odd results, like the year they had Ben Hartsock as the #1 TE in the NFL. Statistics are useful analysis tools, but they should never lead us to conclusions that are not in line with the results we see on the field. That's not to say I expect zero variance in the results. For example, I could see a statistical analysis determining that the Chiefs, Ravens, or Steelers are the best team in the AFC, but I would immediately dismiss one that said the Jets were the best team in the AFC. PFF's methodology would typically produce the former result, but has the capability built in it to produce the latter.

Chromeburn 10-26-2020 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dam8610 (Post 173428)
I have no doubt that PFF is trying their best to get it right, but this boils down to the problem I've always had with them: the subjectivity in their analysis in my opinion creates odd results, like the year they had Ben Hartsock as the #1 TE in the NFL. Statistics are useful analysis tools, but they should never lead us to conclusions that are not in line with the results we see on the field. That's not to say I expect zero variance in the results. For example, I could see a statistical analysis determining that the Chiefs, Ravens, or Steelers are the best team in the AFC, but I would immediately dismiss one that said the Jets were the best team in the AFC. PFF's methodology would typically produce the former result, but has the capability built in it to produce the latter.

I can’t attest to their other models, I don’t know how the other ones work. Like any agency I’m sure they get stuff wrong. I believe the Hartsock thing was bc they were rating him the best blocking TE in the league and his grade was so high it was pushing him to the top despite the other average areas. At least that’s what they said, not that he was the best receiving TE in the league as well. I’m not going to defend everything they do, just so far I agree with the results in this particular QB model.

CanuckColt 10-26-2020 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YDFL Commish (Post 171539)
Darnold is not a good QB.

"Darnold is not a good QB"...YET.
The guy is only 23 and can still turn into a good player with proper coaching.

Chaka 10-27-2020 10:05 AM

According to Florio, most trades will be consummated by tomorrow or Thursday, due to the impact of the COVID rules this year:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...y-or-thursday/

With regard to Darnold in particular, Sports Illustrated is reporting that the Jets won't trade him until this offseason, at the earliest:

https://www.si.com/nfl/2020/10/25/nf...-during-season

Chromeburn 10-27-2020 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 173608)
According to Florio, most trades will be consummated by tomorrow or Thursday, due to the impact of the COVID rules this year:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...y-or-thursday/

With regard to Darnold in particular, Sports Illustrated is reporting that the Jets won't trade him until this offseason, at the earliest:

https://www.si.com/nfl/2020/10/25/nf...-during-season

That number one pick isn’t a sure thing yet. Plus they would want to see what they could get in a trade for the number one pick if they got it. I expect a coaching and front office purge might happen as well.

TheMugwump 10-27-2020 04:09 PM

And there's also this:

https://www.espn.com/college-footbal...ting-nfl-draft

Chromeburn 10-27-2020 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMugwump (Post 173641)

Haha yup. Jets fans are calling it pulling a Manning. Also there are rumors Quinten Williams is on the trade block. That guy was a monster in college I wonder what is up.

Chromeburn 11-07-2020 01:52 PM

Jets just released Quincy Wilson. Couldn’t find a role for him on defense.

Johanvil 11-08-2020 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chromeburn (Post 174663)
Jets just released Quincy Wilson. Couldn’t find a role for him on defense.

But I thought they were teaching him make plays and not cover grass...

Chromeburn 11-08-2020 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johanvil (Post 174681)
But I thought they were teaching him make plays and not cover grass...

Should have stuck with grass

albany ed 11-08-2020 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chromeburn (Post 174663)
Jets just released Quincy Wilson. Couldn’t find a role for him on defense.

The Jets are 0 and 8. I'm sure they're confident they can continue their Trevor run without him.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
ColtFreaks.com is in no way affiliated with the Indianapolis Colts, the NFL, or any of their subsidiaries.