BearFan PHX

Obviously Poles felt that clearing out a QB controversy was worth losing that 3rd rounder. As for Poles speaking at the combine ruining the value, that only matters if there is only one team interested. If two teams saw him as a starter, theyd have to bid with each other and then true value is established regardless of Poles' comment?

Bagent is a better backup.

I gotta say it, and I wont harp on it I will say it once. The league has spoken and Fields is not a starter. Teams chose Kirk Cousins, Russell Wilson, even Jayden Daniels and Drake Maye over Justin. His value was a 2025 6th rounder, which is worth a 7th rounder this year - basically nothing. I can imagine that Poles may have passed on a slightly better deal, but there was no 2nd round pick out thereto be had, no less a first rounder, and Poles has known he was taking Williams (barring something unexpected in his medical) and he didn't need to finish with Williams to trade Justin. And this is deeply true because he hardly got anything for him, so whatever insurance you think Justin may have provided, Poles was willing to forgo it for almost nothing. He got a few million off the cap, and cleared out the locker room for the next guy. I don't think Poles did the wrong thing or even screwed up. I think his idea of Justin's value was more in line with reality than what a lot of fans thought it was. And the league agreed in unison in the loudest terms. Justin lacks something necessary to succeed in the NFL, and without that skill set, all his incredible plusses don't matter. It's exactly what I've been saying since October. I took a LOT of crap for being early to see this. First I was told I needed to let the rest of the season play out before I could proclaim that what was already clear on tape could be true. Then the goalposts moved and I had to wait until the draft to see etc etc. Well, it was just true. It was on the tape. It wasn't that I had a bad attitude or was a hater. It was just that I could see that Justin had fatal flaws, and I said so. And. I. Was. Right. So to all the people who thought it was ego, or how could I possibly know or whatever the basis of all the crap I have taken for these six months - at the end of the day the NFL and Poles agreed with me, and Fields is what I (and they) say he was. It would be nice, but not expected, if the people who were questioning my fandom, football knowledge and character would admit that I wasn't wishy washy about it. I didn't leave myself any escape hatches in case things went another way. I was 100% convicted in what I saw as the clear obvious objective truth, and in the end, I was correct. What I saw was real, and not the product of my ego or negativity. Or anything about me at all. It was just the tape. That's all it was. And that's all it's ever been. And it wasn't because I think I am better than anyone, because anyone else could have joined me in this opinion and been right along side of me. Many here did. Because they believed it themselves, certainly not because I did. If I was an overly negative person, you'd have heard me complaining about some of our other players, or the new signings. In the fall you'd hear me being overly critical of Williams and negative. But you won't. I am optimistic and excited about Williams, and I will give him the same patience and hope I gave Fields for several years. I was very excited when Fields was drafted. I believed in him. And I admit that Fields came into a tough situation. It was a real obstacle to his growth in many different ways. Not fair to him at all. But if that narrative captured the entirety of the problem, then we would have had better offers, and Fields would be a starter somewhere. I truly wish him well. He was a good guy, a leader, an electrifying athlete and extremely likeable as a person. But he is not a good NFL QB, and he's been decoded and never will be a consistent winning starter in this league. I will also say that being SO right about this one thing isn't because I think I have some super football brain. It doesn't mean I think I can make guesses like this all over the place and be sure I'm right. Usually things are much murkier to me. It was simply that what I saw on tape from Justin was so clear that I knew for SURE about this one thing.

I absolutely never speak in absolutes! Also, I think there's a decent chance we make picks at #1 and #9

you could well be right.

lol

yeah they will have about $27 million left after they get down to the top 51 for the cap, but that includes money they will need for the rookie pool, and to keep liquidity for in season moves. we have room for another signing tho. Also there is some chance we will extend Allen another year and play some cap games doing it to free up $. If that happens itll probably be this weekend.

and if I said i thought it was pretty much already decided but if they are surprised by something bad then it could change, thatd pretty much be the same thing?

true I think he probably knows what he thinks already, and is just doing his due diligence. Of course if bad stuff pops up, it can always change things. But assuming it doesnt, they probably know what theyre doing already. true, but I think Williams is the obvious choice, not predicting Poles but from what I've seen on film.

so if you think you are proving youre better off not picking a QB #1 then you have to factor in all the QBs that werent selected #1 who DIDNT win superbowls. No one knows its Brady and waits until the 6th round for him, and you can pick 6th round QBs every year for the next 10 years and not get another Brady. So no one is saying picking someone #1 makes them a superbowl winner, but a higher percentage of #1 pick overall QBs win superbowls than any other place in the draft.

it was me that said it. if we could get something good for him, we ought to consider it with Swift now our starter and Roschon Johnson coming on too. Not saying Herbert isnt good - in fact thats the reason i think he has trade value.

the thing is youve used the raw statistics improperly becazuse you only proved that every non #1 QB together, one of them would win a SB more often, but you dont get to draft them ALL, you gotta pick one, and thats where the #1 pick is a better bet than any individual lower pick QB. again, a coin flip is a better bet than having to roll a six on a dice. And yet if you did both once, 1 out of 12 times, youd lose the coin flip but win the dice roll. that doesnt mean that half the time you wouldnt win the coin flip and only win the dice one out of six times. I didnt have an opinion on Stroud vs Young. I wasnt scouting QBs that year. But a single outcome doesnt mean the odds arent still what they are. And the goat is hilarious by the way!

Here's a good article https://www.foxsports.com/stories/nfl/where-great-nfl-qbs-are-picked-analyzing-54-years-of-history-by-draft-position

1) true, and that doesnt mean Fields is good either. It's a good reason why the record has been what it is, but Fields hasnt show that he has grown in his weaknesses since college 2) same as #1 3) he did, with a team full of future NFL players against college defenses. Williams scored more points though. He had a bad defense and lost games, but he had no future 3rd round or better picks around him. Also, Caleb's college stats are pretty similar to Justins. 4) same as #3 5) thats not even an argument. If Williams is a future superbowl winner and Fields sucks (hypothetically) then you'd keep the bad player because the good one had a higher price?

which game did you watch? Was it all 22 film? Because I routinely see Williams reading defenses and getting the ball out fast to the right WRs with anticipation and location that gives the WRs opportunities for yards after the catch. I've seen many dozens of examples with my own eyes?

this isnt fancy vernacular, its just the words you have to use to describe who the argument youre making, which is a mathematical one is mistaken

OK, let's do it your way and put all the QBs together. I read here 25 superbowls and only 2 were won by #1 pick QB. So youre saying a #1 pick QB has a 2/25 chance of winning a superbowl? thats 8%. Fine. Now were talking about 25 drafts here. lets say an average of 7 non #1 pick QBs per draft. That's 7 x 25 = 175 QBs. And we know there were 23 superbowl wins in that time for them. So youre gonna say 23/175 = 13% chance to win. And youre gonna say that 13% is 160% better than 8% and youre RIGHT! But thats for ALL the QBs, remember, you gotta pick one of the 7 available that year, so the odss that the one you pick will win a superbowl is 13% / 7 = 1.8% So theres your answer. The #1 pick guy has an 8% chance, any single non #1 pick is 1.8% MUCH worse. And of course none of that takes into account that Williams is better than the average #1 pick or anything like that. Youre measuring one guy vs the collective output of all the others COMBINED. Divide that among the others, and then youve got a stat thats apples to apples. In other words the bet isnt "Is this the best QB or NOT" the bet is "WHO is the best QB"

Film Ive seen of the consensus top picks. And that Williams looks better than any top picks Ive seen in years.

I did continue on and dumb it down - its all there, I gave examples and everything. You are doing the math wrong. yopure proving the odds of winning a superbowl would be better if we could have ALL the QBs in the draft except Williams, but that isnt the question. The question is you can only have ONE. And I didnt say Williams will be better than his class, I said that Williams is the best prospect Ive seen in quite a while, and has all the skills to succeed - he is a good bet. I dont hear people burning up on Nix much, but I will go watch some film if you tell me its worth it.

Grizz, you gotta understand, hes not saying he can guarantee what will happen, hes saying he has the best ODDS of succeeding. like I said before, between a coin flip or rolling 6 on a dice, the coin flip is more likely. It has the best ODDS of winning. That doesnt mean you cant lose the coin flip and win the dice toss, you can, but if youre gonna bet $100 on one of them even up, youre a fool if you choose the dice over the coin flip. Im sure you can see that. He's not guaranteeing you win the coin flip - hes guaranteeing it has the better ODDS and youre more LIKELY to win.

I personally like a lot of the people on this board, but I am surprised at how some of the ones I think are good guys are so stuck on Justin, and keep making arguments that I feel like they must know arent factual/logical after we go around a few times and it gets explained. Now I dont mean that for example everyone has to share my view on Caleb, but if the narrative is based on a statistical argument and the stats dont add up, then I would hope those people would shift to a different anti Caleb argument. Its OK to be anti Caleb, and it's OK to not have a reason other than a gut feel too, but if youre gonna put the reasons, and then the reasons get objectively logically disproved, especially stats that are just mathematically unsound, then doubling down on them turns everything into noise in a way. And people sure do resent being proven wrong, as if id said they dont have a right to their gut instinct when I just said that 2+2 doesnt equal 5. For example: Person A "I think Tremaine Edmunds is going to play better this year because Ray Lewis won four superbowls." Person B "Ray Lewis didnt win four superbowls, here a link to prove that" Person A "You think you know everything, well youre wrong about Edmunds" Person B "Im just saying that you cant use the Ray Lewis thing to predict Edmunds" Person A "Dont disrespect my opinion" Person B "I dont disrespect your opinion, I just think youre not making sense in your argument" Person A "Youre being mean, youre a jerk" Person B "no Im not" Person C "hahahah Person B is a jerk!" Person A "Despite your ego, Ray Lewis won four superbowls and Tremaine is awesome" Person B "Hey C, I just challenged the math, not A as a person, look at the link..." Person C "hahaha did he hurt your feelings B?" Person B "no, it just doesnt make sense" Person A "B is trolling, and Ray Lewis won 4 superbowls..." and scene.

Well Id say that Poles vision of building through the draft is a long term one, and these hole fillers are short term deals while Poles catches up and can build even more through the draft. To me it points to taking Williams #1, and making sure that even though you need another year to fully stock through the draft, you dont want to do what we did to Justin and throw a rookie in without weapons and protection. It might even say that ideally youd draft your QB after this year (as you say) but that Williams is a rare opportunity here and now, and so to take him, you need to fill some holes for him. It also points to having flexibility with the #9 pick depending on whether one of the WRs we want is there or a great OT or DE falls instead. Now I admit that my scenarios arent the only ones that fits this set of facts, yours does too Jason, but since they both fit the fact set, we cant use this fact set to say that it tips Poles hand one way or the other?

To be fair stats are confusing and not just common sense sometimes. But when someone explains it, hopefully if you understand them, then you come off the argument instead of doubling down. But in the end, you gotta ask yourself, why would teams not take the best (most likely to succeed) option at #1? They wouldnt. So the professionals make the best bets they can. And like any gambler, you lose and you win, but losing a bet doesnt mean it wasnt a good bet, and winning a bet doesnt mean it was a smart bet either. And all you know when you make the bet is the odds of winning, not what the singular outcome will be.

right, I just laid out the statistical error above, hopefully clearly enough for everyone to see what I mean?

No, what youre proving is: the odds of #1 pick QBs winning the Super Bowl is less than **ALL** other players not chosen #1 overall, not **ANY** thats the whole point. You dont get to draft ALL the non #1 QBs and add them together. You can only draft ONE, and the odds of any SINGLE NON #1 drafted QB winning a superbowl is MUCH lower than any SINGLE #1 QB pick. You cant take only the best out of every non #1 pick and put them all together into a single frankenstein stat - that's what I'm saying. Maybe Daniels or Maye will have a better NFL career than Caleb - but from right here the odds are better that Williams will have a better career - and thats why if given the choice a team would pick Williams #1 and not one of the others. Hypothetically, let's say these are the odds of a player becoming great in the NFL (I will exaggerate the numbers to make the point, these arent real numbers): Williams 60% Daniels 20% Maye 20% McCarthy 20% Nix 20% Penix 20% If you could draft Daniels, Maye, McCarthy, Nix AND Penix, then you'd have a much better chance of getting a great QB than if you draft only Williams. The odds are, on average, one of those players would be great, whereas Williams only has a 60% to be great. 20% + 20% + 20% + 20% + 20% = 100% and 100% is 160% better than 60% That's what your stat is proving. BUT if you can only draft ONE of those guys, then Williams has a 300% greater chance to be great than any of the others alone. 60% is 300% better than 20% That's why you cant do the stats the way youre doing them and then come to the conclusion that youre better off drafting a QB lower in the first round. And if you think about it, why would lower picks be more likely to be great? It wouldnt make sense, because it doesnt. In other words, youre not factoring in all the lower picks that DIDNT win a superbowl in your numbers. Does that make sense?} Oh and I'll also say that I havent done any homework on Nix, so while I can say that Williams has a very good chance to be NFL great based on the film I've seen, I cant say Nix doesnt also have the same or better chance. I don't have any kind of educated opinion on Nix.