Is Trevor Lawrence the Most Hyped Player of All Time?

[Bronco Billy]

This is a really good article that gets pretty deep into the weeds about Lawrence’s ability to throw downfield, into tight windows, and situational throws. Those pushing the “overhyped and overrated because he threw so many short passes” dogma might want to skip it.

https://www.nbcsports.com/edge/article/ ... r-lawrence

[mgscott]

He’s definitely the most hyped check down artist of all time.

On a serious note he’d be top 3 with Luck and Reggie Bush, no doubt.

Agreed

[dustyroads]

Oh April on DLF.... when I can no longer tell if someone is posting a joke/sarcastic take or if they actually believe their uber-contrarian takes.

Back to OP question; I felt like Luck was more hyped in the couple months before the draft; but Lawrence's hype has been going on for SO LONG it kinda feels worse/greater in the long run. But I also think this is why we are getting more of the "Is Lawrence even the best in his class?" type articles as the draft gets closer tarnishing some of his shininess. I don't remember as many hot takes about Luck not being a great prospect as we are seeing now on Lawrence. Hype a guy for long enough, eventually you'll get the nay-sayers looking to get a future pat on the back for being "the only one who saw what no one else did". Especially in our clickbait-y world nowadays.

[mgscott]

This is a really good article that gets pretty deep into the weeds about Lawrence’s ability to throw downfield, into tight windows, and situational throws. Those pushing the “overhyped and overrated because he threw so many short passes” dogma might want to skip it.

https://www.nbcsports.com/edge/article/ ... r-lawrence

Yeah, I saw that. It's actually where I could see that almost half his passes were 0-5 yds thrown. I guess we can each read the article differently to make our case.

Most of the article seems to gloss over the things he does poorly or average or the fact that the Clemson offense is widely a non-NFL offense, and just subjectively says that Lawrence could do those NFL things if he had to or makes excuses for why he didn't do well in those areas.

Apparently Lance gets several throws defended due to inaccuracy, but Lawrence has a high defended rate due to hubris and forcing throws. They call any of his inaccuracies due to his over-aggression and that he'll work that out in the NFL.

His poor 3rd/4th down conversion rate may be the fault of his pass catchers.

It's also apparently a positive that he mostly only saw 4-5 pass rushers because no-one would dare only rush 3 and give him time or rush 6 and risk him picking them apart. Or maybe, Clemson's offense is so spread out, with RPOs, 4-wides, and usually superior athletes, most teams stuck with a base defense without many blitzes. Not wanting to get burnt by all the athletes on the field.

Again, I don't think he's a horrible prospect or a likely bust. Just not nearly as good as he's made out to be. For some reason the same issues that other QB's for years get picked apart for or super-analyzed are just being glossed over since no-one should dare criticize the great T-Lawrence.

[mgscott]

Oh April on DLF.... when I can no longer tell if someone is posting a joke/sarcastic take or if they actually believe their uber-contrarian takes.

Back to OP question; I felt like Luck was more hyped in the couple months before the draft; but Lawrence's hype has been going on for SO LONG it kinda feels worse/greater in the long run. But I also think this is why we are getting more of the "Is Lawrence even the best in his class?" type articles as the draft gets closer tarnishing some of his shininess. I don't remember as many hot takes about Luck not being a great prospect as we are seeing now on Lawrence. Hype a guy for long enough, eventually you'll get the nay-sayers looking to get a future pat on the back for being "the only one who saw what no one else did". Especially in our clickbait-y world nowadays.

I agree with your point about hype. Luck probably was hyped as the American Dream higher leading up and Lawrence more for a longer period of time.

For my part, I believe in my contrarian take and am not looking for a pat on the back. (I will, however, start publishing my QB rankings and cite my better than 80% accuracy rate if/when my take is verified that he will be an average to above average NFL QB) So look for that in the coming years. I originally posted a thread talking about how he is not a generational QB, hoping to get some discussion and maybe opinions on why he is a generational QB despite several coming in the past 3-4 yrs just as talented or more talented. That thread automatically got placed in this hype thread so here we are. So, no really looking for click-bait. Most a discussion about why he is considered a god and his poor traits glossed over. We'll see how he does. And look for my 2023 QB rankings in a few years.

[dustyroads]

Oh April on DLF.... when I can no longer tell if someone is posting a joke/sarcastic take or if they actually believe their uber-contrarian takes.

Back to OP question; I felt like Luck was more hyped in the couple months before the draft; but Lawrence's hype has been going on for SO LONG it kinda feels worse/greater in the long run. But I also think this is why we are getting more of the "Is Lawrence even the best in his class?" type articles as the draft gets closer tarnishing some of his shininess. I don't remember as many hot takes about Luck not being a great prospect as we are seeing now on Lawrence. Hype a guy for long enough, eventually you'll get the nay-sayers looking to get a future pat on the back for being "the only one who saw what no one else did". Especially in our clickbait-y world nowadays.

I agree with your point about hype. Luck probably was hyped as the American Dream higher leading up and Lawrence more for a longer period of time.

For my part, I believe in my contrarian take and am not looking for a pat on the back. (I will, however, start publishing my QB rankings and cite my better than 80% accuracy rate if/when my take is verified that he will be an average to above average NFL QB) So look for that in the coming years. I originally posted a thread talking about how he is not a generational QB, hoping to get some discussion and maybe opinions on why he is a generational QB despite several coming in the past 3-4 yrs just as talented or more talented. That thread automatically got placed in this hype thread so here we are. So, no really looking for click-bait. Most a discussion about why he is considered a god and his poor traits glossed over. We'll see how he does. And look for my 2023 QB rankings in a few years.

I will def be checking it out. I've never had the best track record on drafting QBs from a fantasy perspective; in general I avoided flops, but also missed out on same great ones, especially in the past 3 years. The click bait and back pat comments were about the articles getting posted/twitter threads from writers/etc.; really a forum is the place for them since none of us are experts and really we aren't tying our opinions to our careers/paychecks (so really we gain nothing from them). But really, wth do I know? How many years in a row general consensus laugh at Chris Simm's rankings only to have him be right by the end of the season? Certainly got me to take a longer look at Kellen Mond as a cheap lottery ticket later in drafts.

I just did have a hard time knowing if the check down specialist thing was a joke or not lol. While he's good at it, I wouldn't define his play level/ceiling by that aspect. Pretty sure Clemson was running that same RPO heavy offense with Kelly Bryant before Trevor took the reigns; and they just continued to run it with Lawrence. He elevated it to another level, but I can't fault him for staying within the confines of the system he didn't have much choice over. If they tailored something specifically for him in the following years, maybe I'd question if they were trying to hide some deficiencies he had; but they pretty much stayed in stride changing from Bryant to him.

I've read just about everything I could find on Lawrence over the past few months as I'm debating taking him top of the 2nd in a 1QB; and I can understand the general feeling no one says anything bad about him. But most serious scouting reports do point out some of his poor traits. Mostly the ones you hit on: first take lock at times, not driving through balls when feeling front pressure, losing accuracy as a result of the last statement, having WRs who also excelled at the catch point and had some great adjustments to mask some of these accuracy issues. But on the whole, from what I watched (especially this past year where his team was not even close to as talented as 2019 or even 2018) he generally improved season to season, and those deficiencies were more nit picky than problems which I worry are actual flaws that can't/won't be corrected. Correct use of the word "generational" aside, I think what prompts me to but TLaw in a tier by himself (and maybe others feel this way) was always more his intangibles than his talent. I can see thinking raw numbers, work out metrics, skill drills leaving some people thinking he's much closer to Fields/Burrow/Tua talent level then some make it seem. But I think the field general, the rising to the occasion in big situations, putting the team on his back, succeeding in the spotlight at such a young age, off the field character, etc etc etc are what kick him up that extra bit for me and set him apart. Could be a mistake on my part, but I think that's why I have him higher than others. Not necessarily that he's some kind of Lebron "man playing among boys" level athlete.

Always appreciate the counter arguments though! It is far too easy to fall into an echo chamber on prospects people are generally universally high on. Only clicking on links who's headlines already match your opinion is kinda pointless.

[murphysxm]

Nah, he is that. I've been watching the NFL Draft live since 1987, the biggest QB's to come out since those days across years of hype were Troy Aikman in '89, Manning in '98, Vick in '01, Palmer in '03, Young in '06 (though young's evaluation was kind of difficult), Bradford in '10 (as crazy as that is to believe now), Luck in '12, Tua pre-injury in '20, and now Lawrence in '21.

So, using your logic here, Ryan Leaf who very much had a chance to be drafted aheaed of Peyton was also a generational prospect as well? For me, by definition, you can't have 9 generational prospoects in 20 years

[Ice]

All this and yet there is only one Broadway Joe!

Just sayin!

[mgscott]

All this and yet there is only one Broadway Joe!

Just sayin!

Damn right.

Now that's a generational talent.

[cantguardjake]

This is a really good article that gets pretty deep into the weeds about Lawrence’s ability to throw downfield, into tight windows, and situational throws. Those pushing the “overhyped and overrated because he threw so many short passes” dogma might want to skip it.

https://www.nbcsports.com/edge/article/ ... r-lawrence

This article perfectly encapsulates the Lawrence hype train, read this article and compare it to the Lance article by the same author.

Lawrence high rate of passes defended is framed as a positive due to his “aggression” - being one of the 2 reasons the author states a QB will have a high % of passes defended, the other reason being innacuracy (Lance). Read the Lance article and the author uses the same 2 reasons for a high rate of passes defended but this time forcing throws that aren’t there is compared to Jordan Love and framed as a negative, it’s a positive for Lawrence though.

Lawrence ran RPOs or roll outs on 42% of his pass plays but the author brushes it off as “being clear he didn’t need things made easy for him” and that his transition to the pros may be slow but “to be clear, he will be fine in the long run”.

Lance ran RPOs or roll outs on 43% of his pass plays but his “numbers are propped up by favourable situations”.

Lances pass rush numbers are higher than most, with the author acknowledging it’s likely due to personnel packages as NDSUs passing concepts left 7 or 8 in to block so naturally there will be a higher rate of pass rush. Compare this to Lawrence who had incredibly low numbers on either end of the pass rush spectrum and it’s because he will shred defenses regardless, the author doesn’t even entertain the idea that it might be due to Clemson running 4 wide sets on 43% of their plays (which he even states in the article) - it’s just because Lawrence will dominate anything no matter what lol.

When you actually break down the article he has high rate of passes defended, average to above average in most other categories (with his worst category of third down conversion being explained away as his receivers failing him lol), with only one real elite trait being red zone efficiency.

[Bronco Billy]

This is a really good article that gets pretty deep into the weeds about Lawrence’s ability to throw downfield, into tight windows, and situational throws. Those pushing the “overhyped and overrated because he threw so many short passes” dogma might want to skip it.

https://www.nbcsports.com/edge/article/ ... r-lawrence

This article perfectly encapsulates the Lawrence hype train, read this article and compare it to the Lance article by the same author.

Lawrence high rate of passes defended is framed as a positive due to his “aggression” - being one of the 2 reasons the author states a QB will have a high % of passes defended, the other reason being innacuracy (Lance). Read the Lance article and the author uses the same 2 reasons for a high rate of passes defended but this time forcing throws that aren’t there is compared to Jordan Love and framed as a negative, it’s a positive for Lawrence though.

Lawrence ran RPOs or roll outs on 42% of his pass plays but the author brushes it off as “being clear he didn’t need things made easy for him” and that his transition to the pros may be slow but “to be clear, he will be fine in the long run”.

Lance ran RPOs or roll outs on 43% of his pass plays but his “numbers are propped up by favourable situations”.

Lances pass rush numbers are higher than most, with the author acknowledging it’s likely due to personnel packages as NDSUs passing concepts left 7 or 8 in to block so naturally there will be a higher rate of pass rush. Compare this to Lawrence who had incredibly low numbers on either end of the pass rush spectrum and it’s because he will shred defenses regardless, the author doesn’t even entertain the idea that it might be due to Clemson running 4 wide sets on 43% of their plays (which he even states in the article) - it’s just because Lawrence will dominate anything no matter what lol.

When you actually break down the article he has high rate of passes defended, average to above average in most other categories (with his worst category of third down conversion being explained away as his receivers failing him lol), with only one real elite trait being red zone efficiency.

It’s always interesting to me how two people can watch the same guy play, and then see the stats he puts up, and have such a diverse opinion on him. I guess we’ll have to wait and see who understands what they are seeing better.

[cantguardjake]

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying he’s bad - I just think the “generational” tag gets thrown around a little liberally.

[stoneghost28]

Nah, he is that. I've been watching the NFL Draft live since 1987, the biggest QB's to come out since those days across years of hype were Troy Aikman in '89, Manning in '98, Vick in '01, Palmer in '03, Young in '06 (though young's evaluation was kind of difficult), Bradford in '10 (as crazy as that is to believe now), Luck in '12, Tua pre-injury in '20, and now Lawrence in '21.

So, using your logic here, Ryan Leaf who very much had a chance to be drafted aheaed of Peyton was also a generational prospect as well? For me, by definition, you can't have 9 generational prospoects in 20 years

No, because remember the theme of the thread, it's about "hyped". Ryan Leaf was hyped basically late fall/winter/spring of '97-98. Manning was a product of 3-4 years of hype, first as Archie's son, than as a super elite, mega QB prospect. I agree, Leaf and Manning were neck and neck, at least in terms of reporting, going into the offseason and through the combine (I imagine the horrible mental make up reports made the decision easy for Indy, heck the equipment guy supposedly said he was a complete <censored>), but that was a few months primarily in 1998. Manning's hype star was basically 1994-1998. Leaf's was 1998. Leaf was never in that league in terms of hype, but Lawrence and Luck were, all three of them were hyped for at least 3 years, Leaf was like five or six months.

[Vcize]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that the last two "generational" QB prospects were Peyton and Luck, and Lawrence is in that class. I wouldn't count guys like Palmer/Vick/Bradford etc in that grouping. Vick was talked about a ton because he was so different, but not generational.

Personally I've been lower than most on Lawrence throughout the majority of his career at Clemson, but I will readily admit that as a consensus prospect he is considered generational. If I went back from the time Peyton came out I think it goes without saying that most NFL scouts considered Peyton, Luck, and Lawrence the 3 best QB prospects to come out in that time and then a huge drop to the next guy. I could be wrong on that but I've assumed that's the consensus.

[stoneghost28]

It's complicated, I think it depends, and I agree w/you from the perspective that in terms of no doubt it type prospects, that people would have been flat out flabbergasted, falling out their seat style if they failed, it's down to Elway, Manning, Luck and Lawrence, at least until spring time.

Guys like Palmer, Vick, and Bradford weren't at that level, but they were guys that were hyped like hell for multiple years.