(04-08-2018, 04:07 PM)Upper Wrote:

(04-08-2018, 03:53 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: It's the old "proven vs unproven" dynamic. It makes plenty of sense. Plenty of these types of lists and rankings this time of year use it. Plenty of others don't. 

Just because you'd prefer an equation without that factor to form such a list doesn't mean "it doesn't make sense." 
You weigh sample size less than Gil Brandt does.   That's all.

If it was a good sample sure. But it's two seasons of awful and two seasons of average via two very different routes.

Hoping for increased success from a small/unknown sample is more likely than hoping for increased success from a 4 year sample ranging from mediocre to way below mediocre.

I still strongly stand by what I said, if all of these QBs were thrown into the draft Bortles goes no higher than 8th (not including the current draft eligible QBs obviously).

The bolded is simply your opinion and includes nothing definitive on the topic.  It's a reasonable take, but clearly there are plenty of folks including (the sometimes wacky) ol' Gil Brandt that don't necessarily agree that logic is a hard and fast rule. 

I do think most folks would indeed  (knowing what we know now)  draft Bortles somewhere in the 6th-8th range if all those QBs were magically in the 2018 draft.

It also doesn't hurt that the most recent part of that Bortles sample you are downplaying included a good 6 games of
above-average play - suggesting and upward trend.

---