Tua is not the Problem

"Dolfanalyst wrote:

A new QB statistic that was introduced by Next Gen Stats just the other day:

https://www.nfl.com/news/next-gen-stats-intro-to-passing-score-metric

An article relevant to the playoffs:

https://www.nfl.com/news/ranking-the-14-playoff-quarterbacks-based-on-ngs-new-passing-score-metric

I don't see anywhere on the web where the statistic is applied to all of the league's QBs this year, unfortunately. The statistic looks awfully good in my opinion but has the weakness that it doesn't address sacks, which are highly influential plays in the game.

Just a short background on some of these "advanced" stats.

The concept of EPA = expected points added, which tells us based on historical data the difference between average points scored on that possession from that point on the field in that game situation and average points scored from the new position after the play was over, is rock solid. It's simple to calculate and directly related to win%. The only issue with it when applying it to QBs or any other individual is that it's a true team stat, similar to looking at points scored per drive or so. So it isolates the QB or any other player to a much lesser degree than passer rating for example.

ESPN's QBR on the other hand is exactly the kind of "metric" you don't want. It is based on EPA, but while EPA is just a few lines of computer code once you have the historical data, QBR is over 10,000 lines of code.. doing what? No one knows. Everyone knows that ESPN tried to sell QBR as taking into account anything and everything that might matter, but there's generally no good statistical approach for doing that in many cases and you have to resort to subjective assumptions. Specifically, QBR tries to apportion credit amongst players for a given play: how much did the QB, OL and WR contribute to the result? Yeah.. well how do you figure that out? What's hidden in that code are all kinds of subjective assumptions about how to apportion credit. In other words it's black box (because they'd get destroyed if they showed their methodology), and making subjective assumptions means it's not really a "statistic" in the first place. A statistic should be transparent and inferred from data, not the result of all kinds of subjective weights etc.

Football Outsider's DVOA, DYAR etc. have the same problem as ESPN's QBR: subjective assignment of weights to all kinds of things. In their case it's what they call "success points" for different plays. Note that how they derive these "success points" is hidden — it's also black box — because unlike EPA it's not inferred from scoring or win probability. So again this is a marketing job: trying to claim you accomplished something no one has been able to — figure out how to apportion credit among players — without showing your results. Black box methods that aren't adequately enough described so others can replicate them at least in principle are generally dismissed off the bat in science because you can't just trust someone else's claim that they solved a problem without seeing the evidence!

In that context, this new passing score metric is different. The methodology is transparent because they're basically just applying machine learning to all the data available. There are tiny details here that are not transparent, like which particular machine learning model was used, but that's not a big issue because people can experiment themselves with different models to see what works best. The main problems with machine learning are: 1) no one can understand what the machine "learned" (i.e., it can't be reduced to human intuition in almost every case) because it learns a massive number of weights that aren't really connected to concepts humans use (easily could be over 10k separate weights for something like historical NFL data), and 2) overfitting, which means that it works on all historical data up to that point, but it fails once you add a small amount of new data and you have to relearn a new model! In other words, the model keeps changing so it's not the same model despite it having the same label (i.e., not robust).

So while EPA (and WPA with win probability) are valuable, QBR and DVOA etc should be dismissed if for no other reason than that they are black box, and any machine learning approach like this new passing metric is fine in principle, except that no human can understand what the machine learned in conceptual terms, and the model will keep changing with new data. So I'd stick with simple and transparent metrics that have a high correlation to win% like EPA or NY/A or passer rating adjusted for era (standard deviations above the mean).

"StaleTacos wrote:

Even when he has time, and not pressured. Tua is still throwing underneath and short. He's just not a capable thrower on intermediate passes. He lacks the arm strength in the NFL.

Okay, kids.

Here's Tua on 5/7 step drops (i.e. offenses trying to throw deep passes).

He's pressured at BELOW LEAGUE AVERAGE RATE (25th), and is 40th in aDoT and 30th in ANY/A (out of 46 QBs). @SportsInfo_SIS numbers

He is a quick, underneath passer. It's just how he plays. pic.twitter.com/T1OY38IPB5

— Benjamin Solak (@BenjaminSolak) December 1, 2021

That is certainly informative.

"hitman8 wrote:

You air yards per attempt stat is misleading, not even worth arguing about if you would actually watch the games. That is why I never pay much attention to stats. You can spin a player anyway you want to by just looking at some number. Air yards per attempt is just a stupid average that does not reflect the reality of what is actually going on. Herbert stretches the defense a lot more than Tua, and goes downfield a lot more. The velocity and accuracy on his longer throws are also leagues above Tua's. You will never see Tua make the kinds of throws Herbert made against the Raiders for example to bring them back and tie the game. He is just not physically capable of it.

Also, are you seriously comparing Tua to Montana and Brady? Give me a freaking break. Montana and Brady were great as soon as they stepped on the field. There were no doubts about their greatness going into their third season as there are with Tua. Montana and Brady also had much better arm talent and Football IQ than Tua does. There is no comparison.

I am not holding my breath on Tua becoming an elite QB. His arm is too weak, he is too physically fragile, and he has not shown great football IQ to warrant an elite projection. His cieling in my opinion is above average starter and competent game manager at best.

Okay, you are still don’t get it. I'll break it down. For someone that watches a lot of football you are missing basics. Tua didn't throw deep as often as Herbert. He couldn't. Not with an RPO, not with the pass protection he got. Yet his air yards per attempt weren't bigly less than Herbert's. Why?

First, because Herbert also short lot. I haven't looked at it this year, but I remember seeing that he threw the highest % of screen passes last year by a lot. His total was just over 23%, which was crazy high.. Those passes often aren't even going past the line. But, you knew that right? Since you watch so much of Herbert. Was that the Chargers padding his stats? Or, was it taking advantage of the off coverage that a QB with a great arm forces? Restraint plays also help a crap OL. Context matters.

Then there is an RPO. An RPO stresses a D because they have to treat it like a run and a pass at the same time. The O is run blocking so if their not in their run fits huge lanes, and if they don't cover the recievers, easy completions. It also stresses the QB because it stops the deep ball game. If it's a pass the ball has to come out before any linemen are 3 yrds deep. So, quick reads. No real progression, no time. The D also knows this. They can sit on routes. No time for double moves or deep routes if the OL is firing out. It compress the field vertically. The QB has to make his read, and if it's a pass, he has to pull the ball out, reset his body, and get the ball out with accuracy and it has to be done fast, fatties are faster than they look. The field is compressed. More defenders in the area if he misses his throw. I have never seen any as good at that last part as Tua. He can pull, set, and throw with accuracy quicker than anyone. Its why his RPO attempts increase his air yardage. He can ride the exchange longer. He's throwing 10+ yard routes sometimes. As he gets experience and does better with the reads its only going to get better. And, if they get a great back and better OL... It could be a wonderful thing.

There absolutely were still doubts about Brady year 3. He was doubted even after winning a Superbowl. I don't remember Montana early. Regardless, you are missing the point, which is system QBs, "game manager" QBs, can still be elite. Or, your making a strawman, where did I compare Tua? I'm going to assume the former and state the point.

Just because a QB isn't a supremely talented rocket arm type doesn't mean he cannot be elite. There are many examples of this in the history of the NFL.

As for the Herbert is great stuff... Okay? Yes, if Tua is going to be successful he isn't going to do it like Herbert can. If that rocket arm is what makes a great QB to you, Tua is never going to have that. When I say Tua can still move from average to good, from good, to great, I am absolutely not saying his arm is going to get better that way. I am also not saying that potential is reality. He has to improve.

As for the thread topic. Just so there's no missunderstanding. Tua was not the problem. Average behind that line is an accomplishment. If he doesn't get hurt Dolphins meet the goal of play offs. My assessment of Tua is below.

He's a second year QB that showed improvement year one to year two. His arm strength was better than I feared, but low average. Deeper outs need anticipation and for him to be able to set and drive his throw due to arm strength. His accuracy was amazing when his form was correct with feet set, bad when it wasn't. Threw off wrong foot moving sometimes. He has to get consistent there. He can set FAST. He has real work when the D manages to fool him presnap or he misses a read. He didn't adjust well when they did unexpected things. It forced hesitancy that will kill his game. He has to play fast, doesn't have the arm not too. I see great things if the next coach likes RPO. I'd be surprised if they don't with how Tua can run it. He shows amazing feel for and ability to deal with pressure. If he ever gets better pockets he is going to be able to work them. High Average run speed. Shifty enough. Not going to ever be a dual threat, but can take turn those broken plays into first downs.

"cbrad wrote:

Just a short background on some of these "advanced" stats.

The concept of EPA = expected points added, which tells us based on historical data the difference between average points scored on that possession from that point on the field in that game situation and average points scored from the new position after the play was over, is rock solid. It's simple to calculate and directly related to win%. The only issue with it when applying it to QBs or any other individual is that it's a true team stat, similar to looking at points scored per drive or so. So it isolates the QB or any other player to a much lesser degree than passer rating for example.

ESPN's QBR on the other hand is exactly the kind of "metric" you don't want. It is based on EPA, but while EPA is just a few lines of computer code once you have the historical data, QBR is over 10,000 lines of code.. doing what? No one knows. Everyone knows that ESPN tried to sell QBR as taking into account anything and everything that might matter, but there's generally no good statistical approach for doing that in many cases and you have to resort to subjective assumptions. Specifically, QBR tries to apportion credit amongst players for a given play: how much did the QB, OL and WR contribute to the result? Yeah.. well how do you figure that out? What's hidden in that code are all kinds of subjective assumptions about how to apportion credit. In other words it's black box (because they'd get destroyed if they showed their methodology), and making subjective assumptions means it's not really a "statistic" in the first place. A statistic should be transparent and inferred from data, not the result of all kinds of subjective weights etc.

Football Outsider's DVOA, DYAR etc. have the same problem as ESPN's QBR: subjective assignment of weights to all kinds of things. In their case it's what they call "success points" for different plays. Note that how they derive these "success points" is hidden — it's also black box — because unlike EPA it's not inferred from scoring or win probability. So again this is a marketing job: trying to claim you accomplished something no one has been able to — figure out how to apportion credit among players — without showing your results. Black box methods that aren't adequately enough described so others can replicate them at least in principle are generally dismissed off the bat in science because you can't just trust someone else's claim that they solved a problem without seeing the evidence!

In that context, this new passing score metric is different. The methodology is transparent because they're basically just applying machine learning to all the data available. There are tiny details here that are not transparent, like which particular machine learning model was used, but that's not a big issue because people can experiment themselves with different models to see what works best. The main problems with machine learning are: 1) no one can understand what the machine "learned" (i.e., it can't be reduced to human intuition in almost every case) because it learns a massive number of weights that aren't really connected to concepts humans use (easily could be over 10k separate weights for something like historical NFL data), and 2) overfitting, which means that it works on all historical data up to that point, but it fails once you add a small amount of new data and you have to relearn a new model! In other words, the model keeps changing so it's not the same model despite it having the same label (i.e., not robust).

So while EPA (and WPA with win probability) are valuable, QBR and DVOA etc should be dismissed if for no other reason than that they are black box, and any machine learning approach like this new passing metric is fine in principle, except that no human can understand what the machine learned in conceptual terms, and the model will keep changing with new data. So I'd stick with simple and transparent metrics that have a high correlation to win% like EPA or NY/A or passer rating adjusted for era (standard deviations above the mean).

How about this one:

https://www.nfeloapp.com/analysis/weighted-EPA-methodology-and-performance

"Dolfanalyst wrote:

How about this one:

https://www.nfeloapp.com/analysis/weighted-EPA-methodology-and-performance

People interested in how machine learning research works in practice should read that. It's showing exactly what I said: machine learning models often overfit (they predict past data well because they use tons of parameters, but you have to constantly retrain the model to get it to work on new data), and you keep trying out one approach after another to see if you can find something that works. Often, nothing works lol. But that website is worth reading if you want to understand how people try to remove overfitting.

Note this quote:

Including more variables, which may or may not have real signal, gives the model greater flexibility to fit itself to past data. While this contortion allows the model to perform well over past data, it makes it less suitable for predicting the future.

WEPA is particularly susceptible to overfitting due to the interactions that exist between features.

So WEPA falls into the same machine learning approach as Next Gen Stats' passing score metric.

"Two Tacos wrote:

Then there is an RPO. An RPO stresses a D because they have to treat it like a run and a pass at the same time. The O is run blocking so if their not in their run fits huge lanes, and if they don't cover the recievers, easy completions. It also stresses the QB because it stops the deep ball game. If it's a pass the ball has to come out before any linemen are 3 yrds deep. So, quick reads. No real progression, no time. The D also knows this. They can sit on routes. No time for double moves or deep routes if the OL is firing out. It compress the field vertically. The QB has to make his read, and if it's a pass, he has to pull the ball out, reset his body, and get the ball out with accuracy and it has to be done fast, fatties are faster than they look. The field is compressed. More defenders in the area if he misses his throw. I have never seen any as good at that last part as Tua. He can pull, set, and throw with accuracy quicker than anyone. Its why his RPO attempts increase his air yardage. He can ride the exchange longer. He's throwing 10+ yard routes sometimes. As he gets experience and does better with the reads its only going to get better. And, if they get a great back and better OL... It could be a wonderful thing.

The underlined portion is potentially a problem in the NFL as compared to college, because the linemen in the NFL can go only one yard downfield, rather than the three they can in college. So NFL defenses possibly have more of an advantage than college defenses do against RPO passing. This may at least partly explain why Tua threw 388 passes this season, roughly 23% of them RPOs, and not a single one of them resulted in a short pass taken a long distance.

"Two Tacos wrote:

Okay, you are still don’t get it. I'll break it down. For someone that watches a lot of football you are missing basics. Tua didn't throw deep as often as Herbert. He couldn't. Not with an RPO, not with the pass protection he got. Yet his air yards per attempt weren't bigly less than Herbert's. Why?

First, because Herbert also short lot. I haven't looked at it this year, but I remember seeing that he threw the highest % of screen passes last year by a lot. His total was just over 23%, which was crazy high.. Those passes often aren't even going past the line. But, you knew that right? Since you watch so much of Herbert. Was that the Chargers padding his stats? Or, was it taking advantage of the off coverage that a QB with a great arm forces? Restraint plays also help a crap OL. Context matters.

Then there is an RPO. An RPO stresses a D because they have to treat it like a run and a pass at the same time. The O is run blocking so if their not in their run fits huge lanes, and if they don't cover the recievers, easy completions. It also stresses the QB because it stops the deep ball game. If it's a pass the ball has to come out before any linemen are 3 yrds deep. So, quick reads. No real progression, no time. The D also knows this. They can sit on routes. No time for double moves or deep routes if the OL is firing out. It compress the field vertically. The QB has to make his read, and if it's a pass, he has to pull the ball out, reset his body, and get the ball out with accuracy and it has to be done fast, fatties are faster than they look. The field is compressed. More defenders in the area if he misses his throw. I have never seen any as good at that last part as Tua. He can pull, set, and throw with accuracy quicker than anyone. Its why his RPO attempts increase his air yardage. He can ride the exchange longer. He's throwing 10+ yard routes sometimes. As he gets experience and does better with the reads its only going to get better. And, if they get a great back and better OL... It could be a wonderful thing.

There absolutely were still doubts about Brady year 3. He was doubted even after winning a Superbowl. I don't remember Montana early. Regardless, you are missing the point, which is system QBs, "game manager" QBs, can still be elite. Or, your making a strawman, where did I compare Tua? I'm going to assume the former and state the point.

Just because a QB isn't a supremely talented rocket arm type doesn't mean he cannot be elite. There are many examples of this in the history of the NFL.

As for the Herbert is great stuff... Okay? Yes, if Tua is going to be successful he isn't going to do it like Herbert can. If that rocket arm is what makes a great QB to you, Tua is never going to have that. When I say Tua can still move from average to good, from good, to great, I am absolutely not saying his arm is going to get better that way. I am also not saying that potential is reality. He has to improve.

As for the thread topic. Just so there's no missunderstanding. Tua was not the problem. Average behind that line is an accomplishment. If he doesn't get hurt Dolphins meet the goal of play offs. My assessment of Tua is below.

He's a second year QB that showed improvement year one to year two. His arm strength was better than I feared, but low average. Deeper outs need anticipation and for him to be able to set and drive his throw due to arm strength. His accuracy was amazing when his form was correct with feet set, bad when it wasn't. Threw off wrong foot moving sometimes. He has to get consistent there. He can set FAST. He has real work when the D manages to fool him presnap or he misses a read. He didn't adjust well when they did unexpected things. It forced hesitancy that will kill his game. He has to play fast, doesn't have the arm not too. I see great things if the next coach likes RPO. I'd be surprised if they don't with how Tua can run it. He shows amazing feel for and ability to deal with pressure. If he ever gets better pockets he is going to be able to work them. High Average run speed. Shifty enough. Not going to ever be a dual threat, but can take turn those broken plays into first downs.

Oh I get it. I got it from the beginning. Your air yards per attempt stat is misleading and useless as a measure to compare Tua vs. Herbert. You did a better job now of putting it into context, but you essentially made my point. Tua is an RPO college QB, Herbert is an NFL QB.

There were no real questions regarding Brady going into the third season. He dethroned Bledsoe in his second season and took them to the Super Bowl. Great players don't need a lot of time to show their greatness. People keep bringing up Brees, but he is an exception, not the rule. Usually you can tell within 1-2 years what you really have.

With Tua we have a good college QB who doesn't have the elite traits needed to be great in the NFL.

Grier and our next coach are going to have to be absolutely perfect in their selection of players and system to put around Tua. I highly doubt they will succeed given Grier's track record.

"hitman8 wrote:

Oh I get it. I got it from the beginning. Your air yards per attempt stat is misleading and useless as a measure to compare Tua vs. Herbert. You did a better job now of putting it into context, but you essentially made my point. Tua is an RPO college QB, Herbert is an NFL QB.

There were no real questions regarding Brady going into the third season. He dethroned Bledsoe in his second season and took them to the Super Bowl. Great players don't need a lot of time to show their greatness. People keep bringing up Brees, but he is an exception, not the rule. Usually you can tell within 1-2 years what you really have.

With Tua we have a good college QB who doesn't have the elite traits needed to be great in the NFL.

Grier and our next coach are going to have be absolutely perfect in their selection of players and system to put around Tua. I highly doubt they will succeed given Grier's track record.

One thing people don't t talk about with Brees.He played 9 games a year in a dome.I don't think he would have been as successful playing in the AFC east especially in December.

The Cow is totally on the bleeping money here:
Listen to the whole thing. Not too long.

"Dolfanalyst wrote:

A new QB statistic that was introduced by Next Gen Stats just the other day:

https://www.nfl.com/news/next-gen-stats-intro-to-passing-score-metric

An article relevant to the playoffs:

https://www.nfl.com/news/ranking-the-14-playoff-quarterbacks-based-on-ngs-new-passing-score-metric

I don't see anywhere on the web where the statistic is applied to all of the league's QBs this year, unfortunately. The statistic looks awfully good in my opinion but has the weakness that it doesn't address sacks, which are highly influential plays in the game.

I just read the article, and buried at the end is the correlation between the new measure and win%
NGS - 0.61
PFF - 0.56
QBR - 0.54
Noticeably absent from that list is NFL passer rating which comes in at 0.67* last time I checked
So basically that model uses a whole bunch of math and AI to come up with a rating that is no better than the NFL passer rating. As cbrad has shown all of the ‘problems’ with PR disappear when you convert it into z-scores. But since they want to sell a product they can’t admit that a bunch of guys with pen, paper and slide rules got it right 50+ years ago, especially when anyone with a basic spreadsheet can calculate it for themselves at home.

* I checked on a per team basis, not a per QB basis, and the correlation is lower when done on a per QB basis.

"Pauly wrote:

I just read the article, and buried at the end is the correlation between the new measure and win%
NGS - 0.61
PFF - 0.56
QBR - 0.54
Noticeably absent from that list is NFL passer rating which comes in at 0.67* last time I checked
So basically that model uses a whole bunch of math and AI to come up with a rating that is no better than the NFL passer rating. As cbrad has shown all of the ‘problems’ with PR disappear when you convert it into z-scores. But since they want to sell a product they can’t admit that a bunch of guys with pen, paper and slide rules got it right 50+ years ago, especially when anyone with a basic spreadsheet can calculate it for themselves at home.

* I checked on a per team basis, not a per QB basis, and the correlation is lower when done on a per QB basis.

Good catch. Yes, the correlation is 0.67 across NFL history (from 1966 so SB era), and for a direct comparison to their 2018-2021 range it's 0.6727 so above their 0.61. And doing it by team is correct because sample size issues come into play with individual QBs — they don't all start the same number of games so you can't just plug the numbers in assuming they did.

The simplest way to improve passer rating, other than using z-scores, is to recalculate the weights on the 4 components (Y/A, Comp%, TD% and INT%) from those that best predicted win% from the 1960's when it was developed to the post-1978 period after that massive rule change that led to the league becoming more of a passing league. That would improve the metric slightly without changing its simplicity.

"Dolfanalyst wrote:

I think he still displays the pinpoint accuracy, but if that 1) involves too great a percentage of short passes that don't generate high pass efficiency because receivers rarely take them anywhere (perhaps because defenses are better, as you mentioned), and 2) can't be compensated for by the downfield passing he's capable of, then you have a major problem with the pass offense despite the pinpoint accuracy.

Drew Brees has similar pinpoint accuracy with a comparatively weaker arm, but he could hit downfield passes with regularity throughout his career, and so his pass offense performed at the necessary level for winning big in the NFL.

The remaining question is really whether Tua's downfield passing was compromised by the Dolphins' offensive line. That's the one explanation that potentially salvages him as an NFL QB. If he can get better protection and hit downfield passes like Drew Brees, then you can live with the fact that his shorter passes rarely generate high pass efficiency.

If he can't do that, then his shorter passes regularly need to be taken longer distances by his receivers, and again he just had a season of 388 passes in which that didn't happen once.

I don't see pinpoint accuracy. I See many balls that are catchable, yes, but I think they're often not in the exact right spot.

I disagree completely with the ideas that Tua's some insanely accurate passer.

"Dolfanalyst wrote:

This issue involves a difficult proposition for the league's GMs because they have to weigh whether it's more likely to obtain an elite QB who can win big with the expected level of talent around him, or whether it's more likely that they can obtain the talent around the non-elite QB who needs more than the expected level of talent around him.

Going either direction involves a low likelihood of achieving the desired result, and in some situations those directions are mutually exclusive. Consider for example that the Dolphins next year (2023) will have multiple first-round draft picks. Do they use them in the effort to obtain an elite QB, or do they use them to surround the current QB, assuming he remains non-elite, with what he needs?

Imagine being an NFL GM and having your livelihood rest largely on that decision.

Hey... You're not allowed to post a logical well-considered post on this thread. What's wrong with you trying to upset the apple cart?

Okay, just kidding. You're of course 100% correct. Personally, I prefer we try to develop the team around Tua because in 20+ seasons, we've had literally zero luck finding the heir to Marino. I think it's more likely to put good pieces around a solid game manager than to find a great signal caller because our history (and that of 80% of teams at any given time) is that for many reasons, it's hard to do.

In my personal opinion, we need to constantly look to upgrade every position, especially at QB. In my ideal world, quarterbacks would always have legitimate competition. There are probably a dozen QBs that I'd gladly swap in for Tua, but the cost at which I'd do it slides that number up or down.

Would I rather have DeShaun Watson over Tua? In a vacuum, of course. But unfortunately, he has unprecedented off-field issues right now that would create a distraction and bring undesirable negative attention. Add to that a $40 million cap hit and the loss of ~three first round picks in addition to several other day two picks, and Watson is way too rich for my blood. He'd put us one catastrophic injury from an instant five year rebuild because we'd lose at least six valuable picks (over three years) on a likely bottom-10 team.

My issue with Herbert is that he brings nothing to the conversation. Is he better than Tua? I could easily make the argument, but so what? He's in Los Angeles and Tua's in Miami. Making the argument that Tua must suck because Herbert is better is ridiculous. That's like saying Dak Prescott is a scrub because Aaron Rodgers is better. One can be great and the other can still be good. When someone can assertively state that Tua is the problem on a team full of problems, it comes off as agenda-driven. As I've said half a dozen times (probably), is Tua the answer? Beats me. Is he the problem? Nope. If he's a problem at all, he's probably #5 or #6 on the list.

"resnor wrote:

People said the same thing about Rosen.

People said the same thing about Drew Brees. And Josh Allen, BTW. Very few QBs slide out the chute playing elite ball.

It’s obvious flores was the main guy pushing for watson. I personally think he built this roster for watson. Ross is a clown shoes owner and is basically just a bank. He makes zero football decisions. He lets the gm and coach decide everything. From most reports you hear grier is a pushover basically. This is why he sticks around forever. He’s basically a yes man. It’s possible hes literally made zero draft picks as a gm and its been all gase and flores. I’ll never buy the narrative ross wanted watson because if ross actually cares he would have forced the trade court cases and all. The reason he blocked the trade imo was purely about dollars and pr and protecting the franchises worth.

"OwesOwn614 wrote:

GM Chris Grier talked after the trade deadline of pursuing Deshaun Watson. Owner Steve Ross requested to talk to Watson. Now I can confirm reports are true they’re all in on Tua. As I wrote, I didn’t want Watson for his issues. But did they just blindly follow Flores? Leadership?

— Dave Hyde (@davehydesports) January 16, 2022

They are all in on Tua right after Ross' press conference the next head coach will choose the QB?

If they are forcing Tua on the next head coach. They are going to have a bad time.

"StaleTacos wrote:

They are all in on Tua right after Ross' press conference the next head coach will choose the QB?

If they are forcing Tua on the next head coach. They are going to have a bad time.

Nah. Tua has a shorter window than our future coach. If Tua isn't a top-12 QB in 2022, our two first-round picks will be packaged to move up for C.J. Stroud or Bryce Young.

"OwesOwn614 wrote:

Nah. Tua has a shorter window than our future coach. If Tua isn't a top-12 QB in 2022, our two first-round picks will be packaged to move up for C.J. Stroud or Bryce Young.

Have you learned nothing about not picking Ohio State and Alabama QBs yet?

"OwesOwn614 wrote:

Nah. Tua has a shorter window than our future coach. If Tua isn't a top-12 QB in 2022, our two first-round picks will be packaged to move up for C.J. Stroud or Bryce Young.

No thank you. No more drafting QBs, and look what the 49ers paid to move up.

Wow. So, where do y'all think good QBs come from? I mean, besides Houston? And do you honestly think a year is enough time to evaluate them?

Tough crowd.

"OwesOwn614 wrote:

Wow. So, where do y'all think good QBs come from? I mean, besides Houston? And do you honestly think a year is enough time to evaluate them?

Tough crowd.

I know they don't come from Ohio State or Alabama. The last good Alabama QB was Ken Stabler.

"Rick 1966 wrote:

I know they don't come from Ohio State or Alabama. The last good Alabama QB was Ken Stabler.

Where do they come from? Serious question.

"OwesOwn614 wrote:

Where do they come from? Serious question.

They usually come from teams where they didn't have a great line or a great running game or a great defense, where they were clearly the best player on the team. Josh Allen came from Wyoming. Mahomes from Texas Tech. Kyler Murray Oklahoma. Joe Burrow from LSU, but he's an outlier in a lot of ways.

I like how you dropped Kyler Murray and OU in the middle of that... :001_rolleyes:

And if not Young or Stroud, there will be other QBs in the draft, BTW.