I'd be ecstatic with Parsons but no way he is there at 15. He is an absolute wrecking ball. QB remains a massive issue but the quickest path to relevance for this team is having a strong defense and a half decent QB. If you can add a Parsons to guys like Uche, Winovich, Dugger, etc., you have the makings of a fun, athletic unit as long as some of the secondary remains.If you watch the crawl in that tweet, McSHay has the Pats taking Parsons at 15. I'd be happy with that.
As captaincoop implies in the post directly above yours, the only way a stud like Parsons falls if there is a panic run on QB's and WR's.I'd be ecstatic with Parsons but no way he is there at 15. He is an absolute wrecking ball. QB remains a massive issue but the quickest path to relevance for this team is having a strong defense and a half decent QB. If you can add a Parsons to guys like Uche, Winovich, Dugger, etc., you have the makings of a fun, athletic unit as long as some of the secondary remains.
Yeah, would likely take a lot. Assuming all 5 QBs go before 15, which is certainly possible, you need 9 other guys to go before Parson:As captaincoop implies in the post directly above yours, the only way a stud like Parsons falls if there is a panic run on QB's and WR's.
Among 35 qualifying QBs, you've also got Wentz, Nick Mullens, Andy Dalton (TCU didn't move to the Big 12 until after he left), and Fitzpatrick, and then you've got guys like Garoppolo, Flacco, Romo, etc. or relatively recent vintage. I think there are some challenges in evaluating level of competition with these guys, but I don't think there's reason to be more skeptical than a player at another position.I'm far from an expert, but looking at the QBs in the NFL and the list of top QB prospects in the draft, it stands out to me that almost all of the pros went to P5 programs. The exceptions are Josh Allen (an admittedly important exception), Big Ben (Miami OH eons ago), and Derek Carr (Fresno St.). I think this is relevant when assessing Zach Wilson and Trey Lance, especially when compared to Trask or Jones. Obviously it's more important to compare those players rather than their teams/leagues, but competition matters a lot. QB is so important and those guys are likely toolsy enough to go in the first round, but like @Captaincoop said, considering the opportunity cost is likely a blue chip prospect at another position, the FO has to be convinced a guy has the goods to take the leap.
Appreciate and respect your insight--no way am I qualified to evaluate these guys in a serious way. Hence why I tried to look at quick and dirty data.Among 35 qualifying QBs, you've also got Wentz, Nick Mullens, Andy Dalton (TCU didn't move to the Big 12 until after he left), and Fitzpatrick, and then you've got guys like Garoppolo, Flacco, Romo, etc. or relatively recent vintage. I think there are some challenges in evaluating level of competition with these guys, but I don't think there's reason to be more skeptical than a player at another position.
This is my fear. Pats are targeting a Jones type...so they do nothing in FA...then someone grabs him. And we are stuck with noodle arm again :|McShay Mock (5QBs in top 12 seems like a lot)
View: https://twitter.com/StanfordSteve82/status/1359370998676656131?s=20
It certainly seems so, doesn't it? Wilson and Lance are mocked in the top 10. Jones later in 1st round, and Trask much later.That being said, how would you compare Wilson, Lance, Trask, and Jones? Do Wilson and Lance have enough tools/performance to put them ahead?
I certainly don't think they would envision Jones as a Day 1 starter, so they're going to get someone in FA or trade either way--whether it's a guy like Fitzpatrick or JG, we'll have to see.This is my fear. Pats are targeting a Jones type...so they do nothing in FA...then someone grabs him. And we are stuck with noodle arm again :|
I help myself go to sleep at night by saying that Ryan Fitzpatrick is the worst case scenario.This is my fear. Pats are targeting a Jones type...so they do nothing in FA...then someone grabs him. And we are stuck with noodle arm again :|
It's hard to imagine Bill Belichick using the #15 pick on the 5th best (or even 4th best) QB in the draft. If he does, it's because they are incredibly enamored of that particular QB and feel that he slipped. Otherwise, they're either trading down or taking a stud at some other position. From what I can tell, it's just not in his DNA to reach for a position of need.This is my fear. Pats are targeting a Jones type...so they do nothing in FA...then someone grabs him. And we are stuck with noodle arm again :|
I'd be shocked if we signed Fitz. If Bellichick was willing to sign a guy like that Jameis would have been signed last year. Nothing about Bill's past makes me think he's signing an aging YOLO specialist who throws a ton of picks.I help myself go to sleep at night by saying that Ryan Fitzpatrick is the worst case scenario.
Right, he's the worst case scenario and one that's ahead of bringing Cam back (or just going with Stidham as starter).I'd be shocked if we signed Fitz. If Bellichick was willing to sign a guy like that Jameis would have been signed last year. Nothing about Bill's past makes me think he's signing an aging YOLO specialist who throws a ton of picks.
I disagree, I'd rather bring Cam back. But hopefully they can do better than either.Right, he's the worst case scenario and one that's ahead of bringing Cam back.
I think Bill would far rather bring Cam back (and I don't think it's necessarily a worse option, Cam could be better, Fitz is likely to be worse than he was this year in MIA and cost more)Right, he's the worst case scenario and one that's ahead of bringing Cam back (or just going with Stidham as starter).
I see, gotcha. You could be right, but let's hope it doesn't come to having to settle for either one of those options.I think Bill would far rather bring Cam back (and I don't think it's necessarily a worse option, Cam could be better, Fitz is likely to be worse than he was this year in MIA and cost more)
Yes, or we're in for another long season.I disagree, I'd rather bring Cam back. But hopefully they can do better than either.
Wow, there's really something to be said for grabbing the opportunity whenever it comes. He certainly did and now it paid off.
It's safe to say the plan has failed if it comes to that. I have faith in Bill that he will execute plan A, or plan B, or plan C, and not get down to plan Cam.I see, gotcha. You could be right, but let's hope it doesn't come to having to settle for either one of those options.
I don't think BB gives a shit about whether other people think Mac Jones or whoever is the 4th or 5th best QB in the draft. If BB thinks there is a QB available there who projects to being a pretty good NFL starter pretty quickly (like possibly be able to start games by the end of year ones) BB will happily take the QB at 15 whether Mel Kiper and other teams think that QB is the best or 9th best QB in the draft.It's hard to imagine Bill Belichick using the #15 pick on the 5th best (or even 4th best) QB in the draft. If he does, it's because they are incredibly enamored of that particular QB and feel that he slipped. Otherwise, they're either trading down or taking a stud at some other position. From what I can tell, it's just not in his DNA to reach for a position of need.
He certainly doesn't care what other people think about draft rankings, but I also doubt he is going to have 5 quarterbacks graded as worth taking at #15. What I'm saying is that if whichever QB is available at #15 is graded by the Pats as a second rounder, they aren't taking him ahead of a defensive player or an offensive lineman or a wide receiver that they have graded much higher. No matter how much they need a quarterback.I don't think BB gives a shit about whether other people think Mac Jones or whoever is the 4th or 5th best QB in the draft. If BB thinks there is a QB available there who projects to being a pretty good NFL starter pretty quickly (like possibly be able to start games by the end of year ones) BB will happily take the QB at 15 whether Mel Kiper and other teams think that QB is the best or 9th best QB in the draft.
Or if you believe the off-field stuff is serious. I am going to put it out there that some of the people I trust who have inside info have said directly to me and a few other people on this board “I wouldn’t touch him at all” or “I wouldn’t touch him until day 3”. We’ve also heard DJ, Lance S, Bruglar, Tony Pauline and others say Parsons has a lot of off-field concerns going for him which could cause him to drop much more than people think based on his tape.As captaincoop implies in the post directly above yours, the only way a stud like Parsons falls if there is a panic run on QB's and WR's.
Any idea of the nature of the off the field stuff?Or if you believe the off-field stuff is serious. I am going to put it out there that some of the people I trust who have inside info have said directly to me and a few other people on this board “I wouldn’t touch him at all” or “I wouldn’t touch him until day 3”. We’ve also heard DJ, Lance S, Bruglar, Tony Pauline and others say Parsons has a lot of off-field concerns going for him which could cause him to drop much more than people think based on his tape.
Migh be thisAny idea of the nature of the off the field stuff?
https://fox56.com/news/local/former-psu-football-player-gives-details-on-alleged-hazing-by-teammatesHumphries was awakened by Parsons throwing water on him in the Morgan Academic Center and responded by throwing a bottle of Gatorade back. Parsons then punched Humphries in the face with a close fist, grabbed hold of his neck and began choking him, the filing claim.
Fearful he would be unable to defend himself, Humphries brandished a knife, the complaint says. Neither player suffered substantial injury. Humphries says he told Franklin about the incident and his fear of Parsons later that day. He said the coach’s response was that he expected players on his team to fistfight and take a beating rather than brandish a knife.
During a meeting in the Lasch building with Franklin and members of his staff two days later, the coach is alleged to have told Humphries “you should have just gotten your ass beat and not pulled a knife.”
I know people say this but I just don't buy it. BB is really really smart at football; I'm really dumb but it can't be that you take the greatest FB or wedgebreaker or punter of all time over a pretty good quarterback. Positions have different values and a top 10 QB is just so much more valuable than a top 10 center.He certainly doesn't care what other people think about draft rankings, but I also doubt he is going to have 5 quarterbacks graded as worth taking at #15. What I'm saying is that if whichever QB is available at #15 is graded by the Pats as a second rounder, they aren't taking him ahead of a defensive player or an offensive lineman or a wide receiver that they have graded much higher. No matter how much they need a quarterback.
Last year they also had a gaping hole at QB, and they had an opportunity to select Jordan Love at 23 and instead they traded back and selected a safety. So it's pretty clear that they're going to trust their evaluations even if they conflict with need / positional value. But I think you're right that they're not totally need-blind either. (I do think they care about positional value less than just about any other team, or maybe they have different notions of positional value than any other team)I know people say this but I just don't buy it. BB is really really smart at football; I'm really dumb but it can't be that you take the greatest FB or wedgebreaker or punter of all time over a pretty good quarterback. Positions have different values and a top 10 QB is just so much more valuable than a top 10 center.
We probably won't ever know because are we really going to find out what all the Pats grades were in some past draft, but I really doubt this. The team's biggest position of need is also the most valuable position in the sport--maybe in any sport--and the hardest spot to fill in free agency. Maybe you don't take a guy like Andy Dalton over Ed Reed or Alan Fanecca, but I'll bet you pick Andy Dalton over Joe Thuney or Devin McCourty if you don't have a quarterback.
I mean it could be the case that Harry, Michel, and Wynn all happened to be the top ranked players on the pats boards when their top needs were WR, RB, and LT. (or Dalton Keene and Asiasi were definitely the top two guys on the board when they needed two tight ends). But I trust BB to
A sociopath at linebacker is not necessarily a bad trait. Also kidding. Mostly.Well if being a sociopath disqualifies you from playing in the NFL, they wouldn't have enough players to field 32 teams...
Kidding. Mostly.
I'm not so sure he does. The fact is that a mediocre QB won't get you anywhere unless you have an elite defense to carry him or elite offensive weapons to surround him with. New England has neither. So I'm expecting them to stock up on defense this year in order to make some future mediocre QB look better than he is.I don't think BB gives a shit about whether other people think Mac Jones or whoever is the 4th or 5th best QB in the draft. If BB thinks there is a QB available there who projects to being a pretty good NFL starter pretty quickly (like possibly be able to start games by the end of year ones) BB will happily take the QB at 15 whether Mel Kiper and other teams think that QB is the best or 9th best QB in the draft.
Not just five good QBs, but half of the top ten QBs in football coming from one draft. I like Mac Jones, but when I look at him I see a potentially average QB. He isn't winning games throwing to this receiving corps. So I don't see the point in passing up an impact player just because the QBs suck. You can always find a potentially average QB later in the draft or next year.You certainly have to value QBs more than Fullbacks...but even taking that into account, how often are there 5 good NFL quarterbacks in an entire draft?
I don't think we're saying anything inconsistent. I don't think they're going to pick someone they don't think is good, but do you pick a QB you think will be a solid starter over a guard you think will make some pro bowls? I think they look at need and value in that case and in a year like this one maybe you take the QB. As to Love, my guess (and it can only be that : none of us know what they were thinking) is they simply didn't think Jordan Love would be a good QB for the Pats.-61 percent passer in college, 17 picks his last year as a starter isn't exactly what they normally look for.Last year they also had a gaping hole at QB, and they had an opportunity to select Jordan Love at 23 and instead they traded back and selected a safety. So it's pretty clear that they're going to trust their evaluations even if they conflict with need / positional value. But I think you're right that they're not totally need-blind either. (I do think they care about positional value less than just about any other team, or maybe they have different notions of positional value than any other team)
If there are already 4 quarterbacks off the board when the Pats pick, then sure, they'll take a QB if the guy remaining on the board is someone they had graded as the best or the second best...but more likely, he's going to be their 4th or 5th graded QB. Does a typical draft have 4 or 5 quarterbacks that are likely to be solid NFL starters? I haven't done the research but I would imagine not.I don't think we're saying anything inconsistent. I don't think they're going to pick someone they don't think is good, but do you pick a QB you think will be a solid starter over a guard you think will make some pro bowls? I think they look at need and value in that case and in a year like this one maybe you take the QB. As to Love, my guess (and it can only be that : none of us know what they were thinking) is they simply didn't think Jordan Love would be a good QB for the Pats.-61 percent passer in college, 17 picks his last year as a starter isn't exactly what they normally look for.
On positional value, I think it's hard to decipher exactly what they want, in part because they have been at it so long but also because they perhaps view most positions as closer in value than other teams to. In much of the chatter about what BB is looking for you see language like "a big tough balanced" football team--versatile, strong at every position, not acting like the recent chiefs or aughts Colts and loading up on skill position talent. A lot of teams love allocating resources to edge/receivers/LT: the past few years the Pats have been comfortable spending less on those spots but maybe more on RBs and interior offensive line and defensive backs.
My guess is that BB has some views on football that affect his view of how easy or hard it is to draft players. Just to put down a few:
* OL -- you need some talent, you don't need outrageous talent, but you really need smart durable players and you really should have a ton of continuity so overpay if necessary to keep a cannon or andrews or whomever on the line
* DT--big run stuffers are cheap
* WR/TE (at least in the brady era) tough to draft because of how hard it is to play the position in the NFL so be super careful drafting them because they can bust
* OLB/DE - you know, not actually worth drafting that high -- you can make do with john simons and winoviches most of the time and you're not actually going to get lawrence taylor at 26
You're
With the returning players from the Covid sit-out list and the cap space available to improve depth significantly, even running it back with Cam or bringing in a Fitz could get them to 9 or 10 wins. A "long" season compared to 2001-2019, but a good season overall. If you say that the Bills are going to maintain or improve slightly and the Dolphins and Jets are going to show major improvements just due to QB upgrades (both possible), then I can see an argument how even upgrades AROUND the QB position don't guarantee a fate better than 7 wins for the Pats next year.Yes, or we're in for another long season.
It's worth noting that the last QB they did think was worth taking, Stidham, they did take 15 picks after a G (Hjalte Froholdt). Obviously I'm not privy to their pre-draft evaluations of these guys or the intel they had on when they would be available or how they assessed their chances of re-signing Brady after 2019.I don't think we're saying anything inconsistent. I don't think they're going to pick someone they don't think is good, but do you pick a QB you think will be a solid starter over a guard you think will make some pro bowls? I think they look at need and value in that case and in a year like this one maybe you take the QB. As to Love, my guess (and it can only be that : none of us know what they were thinking) is they simply didn't think Jordan Love would be a good QB for the Pats.-61 percent passer in college, 17 picks his last year as a starter isn't exactly what they normally look for.
I agree with this, 100%. They've been among the leaders in spending at "non-premium" positions like IOL, S, and TE, and among the lowest spenders at WR and edge rusher. I think you can see their emphasis on special teams through this lens, too; you can get a mediocre backup OL for $3 MM a year, or one of the very best punt coverage players in football.On positional value, I think it's hard to decipher exactly what they want, in part because they have been at it so long but also because they perhaps view most positions as closer in value than other teams to. In much of the chatter about what BB is looking for you see language like "a big tough balanced" football team--versatile, strong at every position, not acting like the recent chiefs or aughts Colts and loading up on skill position talent. A lot of teams love allocating resources to edge/receivers/LT: the past few years the Pats have been comfortable spending less on those spots but maybe more on RBs and interior offensive line and defensive backs.
The other thing that we've seen is that they'll evaluate a whole bunch of QBs all throughout the draft. So they might pass on taking a QB in the 3rd if they think there's a QB they like available in the 6th or 7th (e.g. Matt Cassel). At least that's what they've done in the past; obviously circumstances are different now.If there are already 4 quarterbacks off the board when the Pats pick, then sure, they'll take a QB if the guy remaining on the board is someone they had graded as the best or the second best...but more likely, he's going to be their 4th or 5th graded QB. Does a typical draft have 4 or 5 quarterbacks that are likely to be solid NFL starters? I haven't done the research but I would imagine not.
I don't know what rating system Belichick uses, but on a projection scale of 1-100, if the best QB remaining is a 70 or 75 and there are 90+ defensive guys on the board...I know what I think Belichick will do.
Ok this is kind of all over the map but here are a couple points:Not just five good QBs, but half of the top ten QBs in football coming from one draft. I like Mac Jones, but when I look at him I see a potentially average QB. He isn't winning games throwing to this receiving corps. So I don't see the point in passing up an impact player just because the QBs suck. You can always find a potentially average QB later in the draft or next year.
Except good teams don't pay average QBs 20M a year in FA, they either pay elite QBs, or they get cheap QBs.Ok this is kind of all over the map but here are a couple points:
3.) You're vastly underestimating the value of an average NFL QB. Using QBR that's someone like Matt Ryan or Stafford or Kirk Cousins or Bridgewater or Phil Rivers: those players don't grow in trees--they get paid 20 million a year in free agency.
Yeah not following you at all. In reality teams keep average QBs all the time. Flacco, Dalton, Eli Manning, the recent Tannenhill re-signing--once you have a pretty good quarterback you keep that guy forever even if they'll never be a top five or ten guy in the league.Except good teams don't pay average QBs 20M a year in FA, they either pay elite QBs, or they get cheap QBs.
QBR isn't a great metric (your #5 QB last year.... Ryan Fitzpatrick) but even that misses the point.
You don't want to have an average QB. You want to have the best overall roster you can, and the way to do that is balancing QB performance to $. Because of the impact of QB, an elite one is worth a lot of money.... but once you get to average, you'd rather have below average and cheap than average and expensive.
If Bellichick thinks Mac Jones may become an average QB... maybe he drafts him 15, but probably not, because he'll likely be below average the first 2-3 years of his deal, but cheap which is nice, then by the time he's average he's about to get expensive and you want to move on. At 15, you want a guy with the potential to be above average or elite, because that guy might be worth his second deal. OR if you think a guy is NFL ready and will be an average QB from day 1, sure 15 is great, but what QB is NFL ready year 1 but has no upside to be better?
I think the point is that teams that go down this path don't stay good.Yeah not following you at all. In reality teams keep average QBs all the time. Flacco, Dalton, Eli Manning, the recent Tannenhill re-signing--once you have a pretty good quarterback you keep that guy forever even if they'll never be a top five or ten guy in the league.
Yeah and those teams don't really contend with any consistency once they give out the big contract.Yeah not following you at all. In reality teams keep average QBs all the time. Flacco, Dalton, Eli Manning, the recent Tannenhill re-signing--once you have a pretty good quarterback you keep that guy forever even if they'll never be a top five or ten guy in the league.
You say smart franchises don't give big money to average QBs. Is that actually true? Can you think of a single example of a good franchise not giving big money to an average QB?Yeah and those teams don't really contend with any consistency once they give out the big contract.
Though Tannehill is maybe an outlier in that he appears to not be average at all, but well above average since getting to TEN.
Edit- perhaps instead of "good teams" I should have said smart well run franchises don't give big money to average QBs
Right, the Ravens come to mind here because they paid Flacco when they really probably shouldn't have. But they did bounce back and become good again, which suggests they are well run.You say smart franchises don't give big money to average QBs. Is that actually true? Can you think of a single example of a good franchise not giving big money to an average QB?
That's not really the right question, though. The right question is really "how often does giving big money to an average QB work out for that team"? For every Eli Manning (and even in that deal his big money didn't kick in until after 2011), there are like 50 Alex Smiths, Andy Daltons, Joe Flaccos, Jared Goffs, etc.You say smart franchises don't give big money to average QBs. Is that actually true? Can you think of a single example of a good franchise not giving big money to an average QB?
The Chiefs had arguably an above average QB, one they traded for. They knew his next contract would be a mistake, so they traded even more assets to move up and draft a QB, then traded away that starter.You say smart franchises don't give big money to average QBs. Is that actually true? Can you think of a single example of a good franchise not giving big money to an average QB?
Well in the Chiefs case they moved on from an average QB to Mahomes who was already on the team. So not really the same as not re-signing an average QB.The Chiefs had arguably an above average QB, one they traded for. They knew his next contract would be a mistake, so they traded even more assets to move up and draft a QB, then traded away that starter.
The Bills made the playoffs behind average QB play from Tyrod, the dumped him for a 3rd and reset.