Mett show continues...in SD

[pat]

26 minutes ago, wiscotitansfan said:

Oh please, that is the exact same argument as saying Locker did have the skills... because he did go early.

Mett had the skills of a first round pick and the (cocaine?) habits of an undraftable player.

[wiscotitansfan]

Just now, patsplat said:

Mett had the skills of a first round pick and the (cocaine?) habits of an undraftable player.

I wasn't trying to imply that Mett was some stud, but to say that Mett obviously didn't have the skills because he would have been drafted higher is the same logic that Locker did have the skills because he actually was drafted higher.

Players drop for many reasons, just like others are taken higher for plenty reasons too. 

The "If he went higher" train of thought is a VERY valid one in this scenario because who's to say we wouldn't have passed on MM if we took a QB 8th overall 2 years ago simply because the investment of the pick. Give one other explaination that we hung onto a guy who couldn't land a backup job so long... because his  games that you said were better then Mett's were in reality one half of a Jets game? That Detroit game was no better than anything Mett did, it was just a crazy shootout.

[big2033]

2 hours ago, wiscotitansfan said:

Oh please, that is the exact same argument as saying Locker did have the skills... because he did go early.

Locker had more "wow" skills. And scouts thought his accuracy issues could be fixed. Look at the history of QBs drafted high and they need more than arm strength.

Locker's skills placed him in the second round for most scouts. But we learned that his accuracy/injury issues could never be fixed. I remember the excuse is that Eli Manning learned better ... didn't work that way for Locker.

QBs that are statues in the pocket don't go high unless they display some next level, mental or leadership skills. Mett displayed neither.

You guys still can't let go.

[wiscotitansfan]

7 minutes ago, big2033 said:

You guys still can't let go.

I'm not sure which camp I fall under in the won't let it go category. I am just saying that even if we had Locker's worst 10 games or however many Mett started as a rookie we would pass on Mariota if we took a QB the year prior where we took Locker.

Locker went 8 overall but has looked like absolute dog shit most of his career, what am I holding onto in terms of Mett?

[big2033]

11 minutes ago, wiscotitansfan said:

I'm not sure which camp I fall under in the won't let it go category. I am just saying that even if we had Locker's worst 10 games or however many Mett started as a rookie we would pass on Mariota if we took a QB the year prior where we took Locker.

Locker went 8 overall but has looked like absolute dog shit most of his career, what am I holding onto in terms of Mett?

Locker was shit. Mett was shit. The difference is Mett really had no upside and deserved to be drafted where he was.

Locker definitely went too high, but still had more potential coming out than Mett did.

But ultimately, Locker was so bad that he made Mett look pretty good as a passer. As an overall player, he never really looked much better at all. It was just nice for everyone to see a QB that could hit an open player at high velocity and not throw it 50 feet over their heads every second throw.

But he didn't make a dent in the offense either.

[wiscotitansfan]

@big2033, what am I holding onto? "If Mett were drafted higher" was as valid of an argument you can come up with simply because Locker was that bad. You then went on to imply that draft position was related to the skills a player has and when it came down to play on the field I would have Mett any day over Locker.

Again, not praising Mett by saying that he is better than someone who rightfully retired because he couldn't land a backup job but I was calling you out for essentially implying that Locker was a more desirable QB ("has the necessary NFL skills") to go forward with because the NFL deemed him a 1st round pick.

[wiscotitansfan]

PS - I agree that usually where you are drafted is a direct indicator of how teams perceive the level of skill a player has. My point was that if we drafted Locker in 2013 we would have stuck with him (even after looking like dogshit) simply because he was a high pick... Not because the skillset he is perceived to have predraft

[big2033]

14 minutes ago, wiscotitansfan said:

@big2033, what am I holding onto? "If Mett were drafted higher" was as valid of an argument you can come up with simply because Locker was that bad. You then went on to imply that draft position was related to the skills a player has and when it came down to play on the field I would have Mett any day over Locker.

Again, not praising Mett by saying that he is better than someone who rightfully retired because he couldn't land a backup job but I was calling you out for essentially implying that Locker was a more desirable QB ("has the necessary NFL skills") to go forward with because the NFL deemed him a 1st round pick.

Locker was bad. Mett was bad. That doesn't mean Locker didn't deserve a higher draft position than Mett. Mett got drafted exactly where he should have.

You could argue Mett has a better passing ability than Cam Newton, but there's no question there's a chasm between the two in terms of overall talent. If Cam Newton was a statue in the pocket with a slow delivery and had the same average-to-below average QB mental skills he has now he'd be drafted considerably lower ... ie. Zach Mettenberger.

When you have other skills to make up for the stuff you lack. Yes, you get more chances. When your ceiling is low you get drafted lower and you get less chances.

[wiscotitansfan]

4 minutes ago, big2033 said:

Mett got drafted exactly where he should have.

This was Mel Kiper " He's probably going to be a second- or third-round pick" so also a point on why the if he was drafted higher hypothetical was a VERY valid one.

There are probably countless other supposed draft experts that rated him similarly. I get that he didn't go there but this was a fucking hypothetical on how we would have passed on Mariota simply because draft position. Nothing more. Replace Mett with a different name and I would be saying the exact same shit.

[big2033]

2 minutes ago, wiscotitansfan said:

This was Mel Kiper " He's probably going to be a second- or third-round pick" so also a point on why the if he was drafted higher hypothetical was a VERY valid one.

There are probably countless other supposed draft experts that rated him similarly. I get that he didn't go there but this was a fucking hypothetical on how we would have passed on Mariota simply because draft position. Nothing more. Replace Mett with a different name and I would be saying the exact same shit.

He had the drug issues that dropped him lower. I think Mett was a third-fourth round talent. I said it before.

With his off-field issues he got drafted where he should have.

[wiscotitansfan]

You're still overlooking the fact that it still comes down to investment more than pre-draft upside IMO. Whiz (and SD) wanted Mett with their #3 waiver because it cost them nothing besides a cheap contract. No one even wanted Locker on their team because they didn't have the investment of a draft pick involved once they saw some tape.

That pre-draft analysis doesn't mean shit once the pads come on, the only thing that matters is the cost on the front office. No one care where Locker or Mett got drafted but how it has played out so far, at least one team is willing to give Mett a shot going forward when that can't be true for Locker.

[Alcibiades]

1 hour ago, big2033 said:

Locker had more "wow" skills. And scouts thought his accuracy issues could be fixed.

 

Has that ever worked? I'm not talking about Locker here, or who's right and who's wrong. I'm just asking about history of the NFL. Has a QB ever been drafted who had a lot of athleticism, a good attitude, good measurables, etc. but wasn't very accurate and didn't show he could read a defense very well, but who nevertheless became a franchise player? Or even just a regular starter?

[big2033]

1 hour ago, Alcibiades said:

Has that ever worked? I'm not talking about Locker here, or who's right and who's wrong. I'm just asking about history of the NFL. Has a QB ever been drafted who had a lot of athleticism, a good attitude, good measurables, etc. but wasn't very accurate and didn't show he could read a defense very well, but who nevertheless became a franchise player? Or even just a regular starter?

Cam Newton.

Michael Vick.

Colin K brought his team to the Super Bowl.

[big2033]

1 hour ago, wiscotitansfan said:

You're still overlooking the fact that it still comes down to investment more than pre-draft upside IMO. Whiz (and SD) wanted Mett with their #3 waiver because it cost them nothing besides a cheap contract. No one even wanted Locker on their team because they didn't have the investment of a draft pick involved once they saw some tape.

That pre-draft analysis doesn't mean shit once the pads come on, the only thing that matters is the cost on the front office. No one care where Locker or Mett got drafted but how it has played out so far, at least one team is willing to give Mett a shot going forward when that can't be true for Locker.

Locker retired. Before he retired he actually had suitors who wanted to give him a shot.

[oldschool]

26 minutes ago, big2033 said:

Locker retired. Before he retired he actually had suitors who wanted to give him a shot.

Who?