Cimini: Trade Up For Mariota? Don't Do It Jets

[jetfandreamer]

Jets scouting Mariota hard and the Titans scouting White hard...looks like a recipe for a switcheroo...

I have no problem switching..I have a problem if Tenn wants its cake and eat it too by holding Jets up hostage for an astronimical haul to do it

If Jets want to do it..where do you draw the line on what you would give up ?? and I dont think the new GM/Coach are going to throw all the eggs in one basket, 3 months into their regime...they dont seem like "splash" guys and even Woody I think has calmed down from his 'Favre/Tebow" mentality by the way he went about getting consultants and having a better process to get a football person as GM

 

[sg3]

Dan Marino never won a SB either. Thank god we passed him up in 1983[emoji39]

 

[jets82]

IMHO you only trade up for QBs you know (primarily) or fell (bad choice) are NFL ready from day one and are franchise guys. You don't do it off potential or what you think they will develop to be or projected to be. We should have all learned that from Sanchez. Mariota is a project QB just like Geno was coming out the draft IMO.

He may be a better project in most peoples opinion including me but still a project none the less. So he's not worth trading up and a VERY VERY risk choice even at #6 . That's why I was happy as sh$t when the Jets drafted Geno in the second round. If Geno continues to flop the choice doesn't hurt as much. Other hand, I was pissed and devastated when we traded up for Sanchez and that fell through.

I don't believe Mac or Bowles will trade up for Mariota (definitely) or draft him period at #6 (maybe). I don't think they believe he's worth the risk. Winston on the other hand is a totally different story. But even moving up to #1 to get him would cost even more and they just can't afford that. Anyway, appears all to be a smoke screen to me. At least I truly hope so.

 

[Jet Fan RI]

Dan Marino never won a SB either. Thank god we passed him up in 1983[emoji39]

Marino is a really curious case. I think his case shows you need some luck too if you're going to win a SB.

 

[sg3]

I agree on no trade up.

If MM is there at #6 and unless some halfwit offers us an RG3 like crazy trade deal, you take him. We have the luxury, for a change, of granting him a year IMO to learn and develop NFL.skills behind Fitzpatrick, Smith or Simms or the mysterious other guy Bowles hinted at, whomever wins the TC competition, fair and square.

My only quibble is with the ready for the NFL from day one requirement. In my addled memory, I can actually think of only two drafted rookies, thrown in as rookies, who looked and played like established vets in their first season in the NFL after being drafted...Dan Marino and Russell Wilson.

Peyton, Elway, Bradshaw....rushed in and took.a beating

Brady, Rodgers....watched on the sidelines as rooks

There may have been others, but then again, I'm semi senile and didn't remember them

 

[jets82]

I agree on no trade up.

If MM is there at #6 and unless some halfwit offers us an RG3 like crazy trade deal, you take him. We have the luxury, for a change, of granting him a year IMO to learn and develop NFL.skills behind Fitzpatrick, Smith or Simms or the mysterious other guy Bowles hinted at, whomever wins the TC competition, fair and square.

My only quibble is with the ready for the NFL from day one requirement. In my addled memory, I can actually think of only two drafted rookies, thrown in as rookies, who looked and played like established vets in their first season in the NFL after being drafted...Dan Marino and Russell Wilson.

Peyton, Elway, Bradshaw....rushed in and took.a beating

Brady, Rodgers....watched on the sidelines as rooks

There may have been others, but then again, I'm semi senile and didn't remember them

Nah think about Luck and Newton for example, may just be be my opinion but they were NFL ready can't miss franchise quality guys also. Winston falls in that category as well. Now you have the guys that people slept on like Wilson, Breez and Big Ben who should have been looked at that way. You have guys who you thought were looked that way but fell in the draft anyway like Marino and Rodgers. Then you have your bust guys who should have been the second round picks at least like Sanchez and Locker. These once again are opinions and may be my opinions only but there have been a few can't miss guys like Marino, Elway, P. Manning, Luck, Newton and Winston who played that way in college.

 

[jetfandreamer]

Nah think about Luck and Newton for example, may just be be my opinion but they were NFL ready can't miss franchise quality guys also. Winston falls in that category as well. Now you have the guys that people slept on like Wilson and Big Ben who should have been looked at that way. You have guys who you thought were looked that way but fell in the draft anyway like Rodgers. Then you have your bust guys who should have been the second round picks at least like Sanchez and Locker. These once again are opinions and may be my opinions only but there have been a few can't miss guys like Marino, Elway, P. Manning, Luck, Newton and Winston who played that way in college.

The thing that is scary with Winston is..he threw A LOT of mindless interceptions last year...in all games he recovered..but the college defenses are not as good physically or as complicated as he will see in NFL....plus..I would be a little afraid of his off field stuff..not one incident..but 3 or 4....hes being a church mouse now and saying the right things cos its draft time..lets see how he is after he signs the deal and gets the money

 

[jets82]

The thing that is scary with Winston is..he threw A LOT of mindless interceptions last year...in all games he recovered..but the college defenses are not as good physically or as complicated as he will see in NFL....plus..I would be a little afraid of his off field stuff..not one incident..but 3 or 4....hes being a church mouse now and saying the right things cos its draft time..lets see how he is after he signs the deal and gets the money

I hear you as far as his off the field and majority stuff. Scares me alittle also. As for the ints it doesn't scare me abit. Reason being he was not only the main reason why his team came back and won all those games but his attitude won't allow the team the lose. His drive and will to win, leadership and effort on the field and competitive brashness spirit is second to none. I like that about him more them his physical attributes really. That's the kind of guy you want leading your team at QB and you would run through a brick wall in battle for. Reminds me a lot of Marino, Brady and Farve.

 

[flgreen]

Oooh. You're a gunslinger it seems. No Heisman winner since the 1980's has won a SB. You think one of these guys will break the string for the past 25+ years? How did these guys do in the playoffs, given their size and strength that you mention?

Meh

The stat is a bit misleading. Since 1980 only 19 out of 35 Heisman winners were QB's. Several of them were never remotely considered NFL stars. Jason White, who wasn't even drafted, and Charlie Ward, who went to the NBA, come to mind. Tebow should also be on the list with several others. You are correct though few of them were Super Stars in the NFL.

The same might be said of QB's who won NCAA national championships. There are a few more who made it big in the NFL, but we're talking about almost twice the sample size. 35 out of 35. Often the Heisman winner, and the National Championship winner are the same person, and the reason they won the Heisman is because their team won the National Championship. So I guess it is also fair to say an NFL team should never draft a QB from a NCAA team that won a National Championship.

Another factor in this is the way the NFL draft is structured. The worst team gets to pick the first players off the board. Some of these QB's were very talented, but drafted by dismal teams, and never really have a chance to win a Super Bowl. Vinny Testaverde comes to mind. Some were injured very early in their careers. So far Sam Bradford seems to be a candidate for that. When you make these adjustments, you have a very small sample size.

Probability indicates that if you flip a coin an infinite number of times, it will come up 50% heads, and 50% tails. That doesn't mean that in a small sample that Heads won't come up 25 straight times.

From this I think it's fair to conclude that the sample size you are using in your theory is Way to small.

It is fair to say that winning the Heisman does not equate to a guarantee of winning a Super Bowl. It is unreasonable to exclude a person from being a good NFL QB, simply because he was considered the best college football player in the country.

JMO

 

[Jet Fan RI]

Meh

The stat is a bit misleading. Since 1980 only 19 out of 35 Heisman winners were QB's. Several of them were never remotely considered NFL stars. Jason White, who wasn't even drafted, and Charlie Ward, who went to the NBA, come to mind. Tebow should also be on the list with several others. You are correct though few of them were Super Stars in the NFL.

The same might be said of QB's who won NCAA national championships. There are a few more who made it big in the NFL, but we're talking about almost twice the sample size. 35 out of 35. Often the Heisman winner, and the National Championship winner are the same person, and the reason they won the Heisman is because their team won the National Championship. So I guess it is also fair to say an NFL team should never draft a QB from a NCAA team that won a National Championship.

Another factor in this is the way the NFL draft is structured. The worst team gets to pick the first players off the board. Some of these QB's were very talented, but drafted by dismal teams, and never really have a chance to win a Super Bowl. Vinny Testaverde comes to mind. Some were injured very early in their careers. So far Sam Bradford seems to be a candidate for that. When you make these adjustments, you have a very small sample size.

Probability indicates that if you flip a coin an infinite number of times, it will come up 50% heads, and 50% tails. That doesn't mean that in a small sample that Heads won't come up 25 straight times.

From this I think it's fair to conclude that the sample size you are using in your theory is Way to small.

It is fair to say that winning the Heisman does not equate to a guarantee of winning a Super Bowl. It is unreasonable to exclude a person from being a good NFL QB, simply because he was considered the best college football player in the country.

JMO

Fair point. OK. Let's double the sample size. Let's go back to the start of the SB era. Closer to 50 years than the 25 years since a Heisman-winning QB won a SB. What does doubling the sample size do? It nets you 2 Heisman-winning QB's who also won a SB: Staubach and Plunkett. Now, let's triple the sample size and go right back to the start of the Heisman trophy. That puts us in the pre-SB era, but that's OK. It just means we have to look at NFL Championships instead of SB winners. And what does tripling the sample size do for us? It nets three Heisman-winning QB who also won an NFL Championship: Paul Hornung, Staubach, and Plunkett.

Hmm. Are we seeing a pattern here?

 

[flgreen]

Fair point. OK. Let's double the sample size. Let's go back to the start of the SB era. Closer to 50 years than the 25 years since a Heisman-winning QB won a SB. What does doubling the sample size do? It nets you 2 Heisman-winning QB's who also won a SB: Staubach and Plunkett. Now, let's triple the sample size and go right back to the start of the Heisman trophy. That puts us in the pre-SB era, but that's OK. It just means we have to look at NFL Championships instead of SB winners. And what does tripling the sample size do for us? It nets three Heisman-winning QB who also won an NFL Championship: Paul Hornung, Staubach, and Plunkett.

Hmm. Are we seeing a pattern here?

Another thing to consider is that prior to the mid 80's a very high % of the Heisman winners were RB's. Which is really a moot point, except that it further limits the sample size.

What your describing here might be categorized as a current trend. As sited in my 25 straight heads example. In order to make a definitive statement in a probability experiment, the only way you can draw a definitive conclusion is to use an infinite sample. Of course that is unavailable to us.

Also it is clear that the equation is flawed as not all the elements of the equation are expressed. When ever you are dealing with human behavior it is impossible to draft a conclusive equation when it involves the human psyche.

The fact that you site ANY QB's who were good, or won a Super Bowl in your sample disputes the statement that a QB who won the Heisman won't be a Super Bowl winning QB. If your saying that a recent trend indicates that the Heisman selection is flawed, I'd have to say your correct.

If you are saying that it is impossible for a QB who just won the Heisman to be the GOAT QB in 12 years. There is 0 evidence to support that

 

[flgreen]

BTW RI, I'm not attempting to talk down to you. I know from out previous debate on PSI in the deflategate thread that you are a very bright person, and have indicated that you are a current student.

I enjoy fun jousting , which is very different then confrontation, which is actually how I earned my living for many many years. I come to Jets boards to get away from it.

 

[Jet Fan RI]

Another thing to consider is that prior to the mid 80's a very high % of the Heisman winners were RB's. Which is really a moot point, except that it further limits the sample size.

What your describing here might be categorized as a current trend. As sited in my 25 straight heads example. In order to make a definitive statement in a probability experiment, the only way you can draw a definitive conclusion is to use an infinite sample. Of course that is unavailable to us.

Also it is clear that the equation is flawed as not all the elements of the equation are expressed. When ever you are dealing with human behavior it is impossible to draft a conclusive equation when it involves the human psyche.

The fact that you site ANY QB's who were good, or won a Super Bowl in your sample disputes the statement that a QB who won the Heisman won't be a Super Bowl winning QB. If your saying that a recent trend indicates that the Heisman selection is flawed, I'd have to say your correct.

If you are saying that it is impossible for a QB who just won the Heisman to be the GOAT QB in 12 years. There is 0 evidence to support that

OK. Let's look at this two other ways. First, in your personal experience of watching the NFL, which QB's do you feel fall into the very good to great category? That eliminates looking at championships and looks instead at the QB's themselves. It also brings in a guy like Marino who did not win a SB, but who was clearly great. Include everybody you can think of, Bradshaw, Montana, Brady, Rodgers, Flacco, etc., etc. For me, that list drops a guy like Plunkett off the list, because I don't think he was very good to great.

Now, how many QB's on your list won the Heisman? For me, it's only Staubach.

The other way to look at it is to look at the list of Heisman QB's. How many of them have you even heard of (and I don't mean the ones you heard of because they were so bad), let alone that you consider very good to great? All I see is Hornung and Staubach.

The bottom line is, if you are looking for a franchise QB, the list of Heisman winners is not the place to go.

 

[Jet Fan RI]

BTW RI, I'm not attempting to talk down to you. I know from out previous debate on PSI in the deflategate thread that you are a very bright person, and have indicated that you are a current student.

I enjoy fun jousting , which is very different then confrontation, which is actually how I earned my living for many many years. I come to Jets boards to get away from it.

Absolutely no offense taken here Mr. green. I consider what we have been doing here as just debating.

Now, as to the student part, it depends on what you mean. If it is along the lines of "the judge remains a student of the law," then yes, in that sense I am a student of physics. But since my Ph.D. is dated 1983, no, I am no longer attending classes.

 

[flgreen]

OK. Let's look at this two other ways. First, in your personal experience of watching the NFL, which QB's do you feel fall into the very good to great category? That eliminates looking at championships and looks instead at the QB's themselves. It also brings in a guy like Marino who did not win a SB, but who was clearly great. Include everybody you can think of, Bradshaw, Montana, Brady, Rodgers, Flacco, etc., etc. For me, that list drops a guy like Plunkett off the list, because I don't think he was very good to great.

Now, how many QB's on your list won the Heisman? For me, it's only Staubach.

The other way to look at it is to look at the list of Heisman QB's. How many of them have you even heard of (and I don't mean the ones you heard of because they were so bad), let alone that you consider very good to great? All I see is Hornung and Staubach.

The bottom line is, if you are looking for a franchise QB, the list of Heisman winners is not the place to go.

I understand what you are saying RI. The evidence indicates that because a player won a Heisman doesn't mean he will be a great NFL QB. Any one who is making a statement that "So & so QB won a Heisman so he will be a great NFL QB", or "I would only draft a QB #1 who has won a Heisman" is on a fools errant. Conversely if a person uses winning the Heisman as an absolute disqualifier, is equality mistaken.

All it is evidence of is that a group of people in a flawed process, have selected him to the best player in NCAA football. Period.

 

[Jet Fan RI]

I understand what you are saying RI. The evidence indicates that because a player won a Heisman doesn't mean he will be a great NFL QB. Any one who is making a statement that "So & so QB won a Heisman so he will be a great NFL QB", or "I would only draft a QB #1 who has won a Heisman" is on a fools errant. Conversely if a person uses winning the Heisman as an absolute disqualifier, is equality mistaken.

All it is evidence of is that a group of people in a flawed process, have selected him to the best player in NCAA football. Period.

To the first bolded point, I say it goes the other way too, which is why I suggested the exercise of thinking about all NFL QB's you have seen who you would consider very good to great. But the point is, if you are looking at a great NFL QB, you can be almost certain you are not looking at a Heisman winner.

On the second point, I agree with you. Hornung and Staubach alone are counter examples. But I never said it was an "absolute disqualifier," which is one reason I used the word "almost" in the first paragraph. Still, in view of the long history of Heisman-winning QB's, I think the Heisman creates an enormous mountain the man has to overcome. Perhaps that is why a Heisman QB who can win the SB comes along only once every 25 years or so. Hey, in another 20 years or so I would almost say we can predict one will win a SB!

 

[flgreen]

To the first bolded point, I say it goes the other way too, which is why I suggested the exercise of thinking about all NFL QB's you have seen who you would consider very good to great. But the point is, if you are looking at a great NFL QB, you can be almost certain you are not looking at a Heisman winner.

On the second point, I agree with you. Hornung and Staubach alone are counter examples. But I never said it was an "absolute disqualifier," which is one reason I used the word "almost" in the first paragraph. Still, in view of the long history of Heisman-winning QB's, I think the Heisman creates an enormous mountain the man has to overcome. Perhaps that is why a Heisman QB who can win the SB comes along only once every 25 years or so. Hey, in another 20 years or so I would almost say we can predict one will win a SB!

Well I'll end this debate with a brief allegory. I think we have bored the rest of the board with out theories of theoretical mathematics long enough.

I have been betting 8-10 NCAA football games a week for 20+ years, (profitability) During the course of that time I have experimented with over a dozen of these real time monster data base handicapping software programs. There's hundreds of them on the market. Trying to find the perfect formula through mathematical analysts of past events that would allow me to enter all the games, and their lines , and come up with 10 games that would allow me to become rich, with out doing anything. LOL

Some of them were very good and some were trash. In many cases I could enter scenario's from the past 20 years that would return 90% winning results from past games. WOW.

Sadly, in all cases, when I attempted to use very strong past trends, examining thousands of past games to the future. They all fell on their asses. I now use them as a tool only in selecting games that I might want to take a more detailed look at.

The morale is, no matter how strong a current trend is, you can't use it exclusively to predict the future. The trend always shifts for various reasons.

Been fun

 

[Jet Fan RI]

Well I'll end this debate with a brief allegory. I think we have bored the rest of the board with out theories of theoretical mathematics long enough.

I have been betting 8-10 NCAA football games a week for 20+ years, (profitability) During the course of that time I have experimented with over a dozen of these real time monster data base handicapping software programs. There's hundreds of them on the market. Trying to find the perfect formula through mathematical analysts of past events that would allow me to enter all the games, and their lines , and come up with 10 games that would allow me to become rich, with out doing anything. LOL

Some of them were very good and some were trash. In many cases I could enter scenario's from the past 20 years that would return 90% winning results from past games. WOW.

Sadly, in all cases, when I attempted to use very strong past trends, examining thousands of past games to the future. They all fell on their asses. I now use them as a tool only in selecting games that I might want to take a more detailed look at.

The morale is, no matter how strong a current trend is, you can't use it exclusively to predict the future. The trend always shifts for various reasons.

Been fun

And the man who can determine the shift before it happens gets rich. But I wonder how much of that is really just luck.

Fun! Agreed.

 

[flgreen]

And the man who can determine the shift before it happens gets rich. But I wonder how much of that is really just luck.

Fun! Agreed.

True words

 

[ucrenegade]

no trade-up is necessary........maybe for someone like luck,manning,or brees you trade up but not for mariotta or winston esp when you have a good stop gap player that can give you at least 3 more seasons.