2018 Draft: Patriots and QBs

[DJnVa]

I was hoping to keep this thread mostly on QBs, since it seems that we'll likely be looking for one.

I am assuming that the top guys: Rosen, Darnold, Allen, plus Mayfield/Jackson will be off the board before the Pats think about picking a QB, but possibly not.

My early sleeper is Luke Falk out of Washington State. Gonna watch them tomorrow night to check him out.

Thoughts? Do they use that SF pick on one?

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Given that the Patriots are committed to Brady for a few years anyway, I think the smart approach is only to draft a QB high (meaning with their 1 or either of their 2s) if they really like the guy. If not, then just grab a developmental player in the 4th or 5th round or something, take a look at him throughout 2018 in practices and in the film room, and then grab another QB if necessary in 2019. There is something to be said for giving yourself multiple bites at the apple, especially if you're never drafting high enough to get the consensus top prospects in any given draft.

 

[SMU_Sox]

If you are interested in this topic I would highly recommend the Locked on Patriots Podcast and Mark Schofield's work. He is also on Locked on the NFL Draft as a QB expert. I listen to both podcasts and get a lot out of them.

Edit: Also, it's still cool to me that SoSHer's are now/still doing this. Not so shameless plug for Mark and his great work.

Edit2: Thank you for the shout-out on the podcast. Made my day/week.

 

[Super Nomario]

Given that the Patriots are committed to Brady for a few years anyway, I think the smart approach is only to draft a QB high (meaning with their 1 or either of their 2s) if they really like the guy. If not, then just grab a developmental player in the 4th or 5th round or something, take a look at him throughout 2018 in practices and in the film room, and then grab another QB if necessary in 2019. There is something to be said for giving yourself multiple bites at the apple, especially if you're never drafting high enough to get the consensus top prospects in any given draft.

I thought it interesting that the Patriots signed Hoyer to a three-year deal. They can afford to wait on QB if they don't like one, or use a late-round flyer if they're not sold on the early-round guys. They've done pretty much everything over the years - the second on Jimmy, thirds on Brissett, Mallett, and O'Connor, a fourth on Davey, late-rounders on Cassel, Zac Robinson, and Kliff Kingsbury (and Brady for that matter), UDFAs like Hoyer and Matt Gutierrez. Or they can use a high pick on a guy with a lot of rough edges that need to be smoothed out, planning to have him redshirt as a rookie.

 

[mascho]

There was a bat signal of sorts pointed into the sky and it drew me in here....

I think the approach laid out by MMS above makes a certain deal of sense. If there's a guy they like in the first or second, just grab him. Issue becomes whether they want to expend the draft capital to get up into perhaps the top ten and get their guy. Looking at the current order, I see four teams that definitely address QB (Cleveland, NYG, Denver and NYJ) and two more that might (Indy, Cincy). There's a chance red flag guys like Allen and Lamar fall, for sure. But given the realness of QB thirst, guys will come off early.

If they wait, there are later-round guys that are really intriguing. Mike White from Western Kentucky is one. I like this Brandon Silvers kid from Troy. Both are gonna be in Mobile. Coming into the year I was intrigued by Matt Linehan from Idaho (NFL background, runs an offense rooted in E-P passing concepts) but it seems the NFL might be shying away from him. Still think he gets a look somewhere.

As much as it pains me to say it, since I'm personally low on him, but Josh Allen might make sense. The best scenario for him is to go somewhere where he A: Won't have to play right away and B: Will have weapons/structure in place when he does. If you're drafting him high you're betting on development to take place in the NFL. Don't let the recency bias of Goff and Wentz fool you, it rarely happens in the NFL. I'm much more comfortable regarding his future if he's in New England or say Pittsburgh, which I think is likely a better schematic fit for him.

For Falk, he's in that Day 3 mix for me. Expected to see more from him this year, I'm not so much worried about the offensive scheme he's run, as more and more teams are using Air Raid concepts on Sundays, but it just didn't click for me this year.

And, thank you for the kind words SMU, appreciate the love.

 

[SoxJox]

I posted this a while back in the Hoyer signing thread, but if you want a view as to the potential field...

Lots of sites out there "ranking" potential 2018 draftees.

Scouts:

1. Sam Darnold, USC (35 points, 4 first-place votes, appeared on all 8 ballots)
2. Josh Rosen, UCLA (34 points, 3 first-place votes, 8 ballots)
3. Josh Allen, Wyoming (23 points, 1 first-place vote, 8 ballots)
4. Luke Falk, Washington State (10 points, 6 ballots)
5. Mason Rudolph, Oklahoma State (7 points, 3 ballots)
6. Baker Mayfield, Oklahoma (6 points, 4 ballots)
7. Lamar Jackson, Louisville (5 points, 2 ballots)
8. Ryan Finley, N.C. State (1 point, 1 ballot)

CBS:

1. Sam Darnold, USC
2. Josh Rosen, UCLA
3. Mason Rudolph, Oklahoma State
4. Josh Allen, Wyoming
5. Luke Falk, Washington State

USA Today:

1. Josh Allen, Wyoming
2. Sam Darnold, USC
3. Lamar Jackson, Louisville
4. Tanner Lee, Nebraska
5. Baker Mayfield, Oklahoma
6. Josh Rosen, UCLA

Sports On Earth provides a more comprehensive listing, but they rank as a college QB (not as a prospective NFL QB). Still, it gives a broader view of what's out there for the 2018 draft. However, some of these guys will not be available because they won't be coming out early

1. Lamar Jackson, Louisville (JR)
2. Sam Darnold, USC (RS SO)
3. Baker Mayfield, Oklahoma (RS SR)
4. Mason Rudolph, Oklahoma State (SR)
5. Jake Browning, Washington (JR)
6. Josh Rosen, UCLA (JR)
7. Trace McSorley, Penn State (JR)
8. J.T. Barrett, Ohio State (SR)
9. Quinton Flowers, South Florida (SR)
10. Luke Falk, Washington State (SR)
11. Josh Allen, Wyoming (JR)
12. Deondre Francois, Florida State (RS SO)
13. Jalen Hurts, Alabama (SO)
14. Nick Fitzgerald, Mississippi State (JR)
15. Jarrett Stidham, Auburn (SO)
16. Will Grier, West Virginia (RS JR)
17. Logan Woodside, Toledo (SR)
18. Jake Bentley, South Carolina (SO)
19. Brett Rypien, Boise State (JR)
20. Brent Stockstill, Middle Tennessee (JR)
21. Mike White, Western Kentucky (RS SR)
22. Austin Allen, Arkansas (SR)
23. Shea Patterson, Ole Miss (SO)
24. Tanner Mangum, BYU (JR)
25. Riley Ferguson, Memphis (SR)
26. Jacob Eason, Georgia (SO)
27. Kyle Allen, Houston (JR)
28. Jesse Ertz, Kansas State (SR)
29. Justin Herbert, Oregon (SO)
30. Shane Buechele, Texas (SO)
31. Matt Linehan, Idaho (JR)
32. Nick Stevens, Colorado State (SR)
33. Wilton Speight, Michigan (SR)
34. Eric Dungey, Syracuse (JR)
35. Ryan Finley, N.C. State (JR)

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

I thought it interesting that the Patriots signed Hoyer to a three-year deal. They can afford to wait on QB if they don't like one, or use a late-round flyer if they're not sold on the early-round guys. They've done pretty much everything over the years - the second on Jimmy, thirds on Brissett, Mallett, and O'Connor, a fourth on Davey, late-rounders on Cassel, Zac Robinson, and Kliff Kingsbury (and Brady for that matter), UDFAs like Hoyer and Matt Gutierrez. Or they can use a high pick on a guy with a lot of rough edges that need to be smoothed out, planning to have him redshirt as a rookie.

Agreed. As with most things, I think they're trying to maintain flexibility and keep their options open and that signing Hoyer for three years (although to a deal that is relatively painless to get out of if necessary) reflects that approach.

 

[Ed Hillel]

If they like a guy in the first or second, I’m in favor of dedicating multiple picks to QBs, similar to the Redskins approach with RG3 and Cousins, which includes a 4th or 5th round guy with some upside. I can’t really speak to the players themselves, as I don’t watch all that much college game, and I understand that leaves them with 4 QB at the moment, but I’d be more than fine having them bring in four to evaluate at camp and go from there.

 

[dcmissle]

Really happy with this thread. Intended to open it myself today.

I don’t know how you can’t be intrigued and exited about this. I am looking forward to insight on the QB draft class from knowledgeable people here, and we have a few who are quite knowledgeable.

Nothing the Pats may do would surprise me, and that includes moving up for big game hunting if they are really sold on a guy or two.

What Morgan says makes sense. But let’s not make more of the Hoyer signing that it warrants. He is a stopgap who provides flexibility. He is a respectable starter. He is not a guy you can win a SB with unless you have the Denver defense of recent years, and we’re so far away from that it’s not worth discussing. It would take 2 or 3 years to evolve that kind of defense, and the Pats are about being competitive, for a championship, every year.

 

[PC Drunken Friar]

Man I had no idea Ferguson from Memphis was rated so low. I know there are some character issues, but I thought those were done with.

He is also old, but I don't really think that matters as much for a QB in the NFL, does it?

 

[Saints Rest]

Is there any chance that the Pats pursue a backup to Brady (and a future replacement) by signing a FA rather than thru the draft?

 

[DJnVa]

To the experts: Is there any chance Lamar Jackson can duplicate (not exactly, but close) what Watson did? Not immediately, but eventually? Or is his accuracy simply not good enough?

 

[finnVT]

I've been trying to keep on eye out of draft eligible QBs during the bowls, but so far I've been pretty unimpressed. Logan Woodside (Toledo) and Nick Shimonek (TTech) both looked pretty bad to me. I was intrigued by Clayton Thorson (Northwestern), but he announced he's going back for his SR year. Other than the usual suspects, I'm curious about opinions on Riley Ferguson (Memphis) and Kyle Lauletta (Richmond) as late/udfa options.

 

[SoxJox]

Going back to the list from Sports on Earth above, I pared down the list to only Seniors and Juniors (potential early entries), and have included their 2017 numbers.

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure what criteria SoE used, because they seem to be all over the place, and some of these guys cannot even remotely be considered as potential draftees, but here are their numbers in any case. [Note: You can scroll vertically/horizontally within the table.]

As a calibration point for 2017: the average number of pass attempts and completions for the season for the top 50 FBS schools was 410.7 and 255.2, respectively.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

If they like a guy in the first or second, I’m in favor of dedicating multiple picks to QBs, similar to the Redskins approach with RG3 and Cousins, which includes a 4th or 5th round guy with some upside. I can’t really speak to the players themselves, as I don’t watch all that much college game, and I understand that leaves them with 4 QB at the moment, but I’d be more than fine having them bring in four to evaluate at camp and go from there.

Can they afford to do that though? They have serious needs on defense. I think I'd rather see them use their high picks on that side of the ball.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Can they afford to do that though? They have serious needs on defense. I think I'd rather see them use their high picks on that side of the ball.

Agreed. They really need front seven talent and the safeties aren’t getting any younger either.

 

[Captaincoop]

Good thread.

It seems like the Pats drafting a QB anywhere in the top half of the draft would run counter to the decision they made to ride Brady to the end and move Jimmy G. They look like they're all-in on the next two or so years. Why turn around now and draft a QB in the second round when they have all kinds of need at DL and LB, and maybe at WR (Dola and Edelman are both getting up there) and OL as well?

Although who knows what they think they have in the injured 2017 draftees that we haven't seen.

 

[Marciano490]

Also, while harder to project, doesn't part of the analysis need to look at next year's draft class, too?

 

[Marciano490]

And, beyond that - and this is also impossible to know for certain, but given how the roster will likely look in a couple years (average to below average defense, older skill position players who are injury risks) - don't we have to assume that we need a Top 5 to compete? I can't see this team winning a SB as currently constructed or as likely constructed a couple years from now with even a Goff, Bradford or Keenum type.

 

[Super Nomario]

Can they afford to do that though? They have serious needs on defense. I think I'd rather see them use their high picks on that side of the ball.

It's the draft - the draft is about the future. If they have immediate holes, they're better off filling them via trade or free agency. The young guys (Valentine, Lee, Adam Butler, Wise, Rivers, Langi, Elandon Roberts, maybe even Cyrus Jones) developing (or not) is probably going to impact the 2018 defense more than anyone they're going to draft late 1 / early 2. Most rookies don't play a lot and most of them are bad when they do.

If they like a guy in the first or second, I’m in favor of dedicating multiple picks to QBs, similar to the Redskins approach with RG3 and Cousins, which includes a 4th or 5th round guy with some upside. I can’t really speak to the players themselves, as I don’t watch all that much college game, and I understand that leaves them with 4 QB at the moment, but I’d be more than fine having them bring in four to evaluate at camp and go from there.

The other thing I could see is taking a flier on a young veteran. Maybe they liked a guy like Tom Savage, Christian Hackenberg, Cardale Jones, Cody Kessler, etc. coming out of college but didn't get the opportunity to draft them, and now they're available free / cheap. They've brought in camp arms along these lines in the past - most famously Tebow, but also guys like Andrew Walter, Ryan Lindley. Needless to say, it's a pretty low-probability move.

 

[DJnVa]

Good thread.

It seems like the Pats drafting a QB anywhere in the top half of the draft would run counter to the decision they made to ride Brady to the end and move Jimmy G. They look like they're all-in on the next two or so years. Why turn around now and draft a QB in the second round .

Because there could be a guy there they REALLY like but still needs a few seasons. Not saying they do, but I don't think that would run counter to the trade of JG. The JG issue was timing--he needed to be paid. A draftee wouldn't be.

 

[Captaincoop]

Because there could be a guy there they REALLY like but still needs a few seasons. Not saying they do, but I don't think that would run counter to the trade of JG. The JG issue was timing--he needed to be paid. A draftee wouldn't be.

Sure. But if you're keeping Brady over Jimmy G, my guess is the plan is to use most available capital to make the team as strong as possible in 2018 and 2019, not to build for the years beyond that.

Although trying to read Belichick's mind is usually a fool's errand.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

It's the draft - the draft is about the future. If they have immediate holes, they're better off filling them via trade or free agency. The young guys (Valentine, Lee, Adam Butler, Wise, Rivers, Langi, Elandon Roberts, maybe even Cyrus Jones) developing (or not) is probably going to impact the 2018 defense more than anyone they're going to draft late 1 / early 2. Most rookies don't play a lot and most of them are bad when they do.

Agree with your overall point, that the draft is more about he future, but disagree with your follow up. They've had plenty of rookie defenders that contributed immediately - Wilfork, Seymour, McCourty, Warren, Brown, etc. Plenty others. If they draft properly they can find some help for a porous defensive front 7.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Agree with your overall point, that the draft is more about he future, but disagree with your follow up. They've had plenty of rookie defenders that contributed immediately - Wilfork, Seymour, McCourty, Warren, Brown, etc. Plenty others. If they draft properly they can find some help for a porous defensive front 7.

At the very least, the vast majority of their first round picks in the BB era have contributed substantially in their rookie year. And those that haven't have usually had some kind of injury issue (Easley, Watson). I would think that they'd draft expecting the 1st rounder to be a starter or major rotational contributor and hoping that at least one of the second rounders could do the same.

 

[Super Nomario]

Agree with your overall point, that the draft is more about he future, but disagree with your follow up. They've had plenty of rookie defenders that contributed immediately - Wilfork, Seymour, McCourty, Warren, Brown, etc. Plenty others. If they draft properly they can find some help for a porous defensive front 7.

I stand by what I wrote - 1) even the high picks are unlikely to be impact players 2) most rookies don't play much and most of those that do aren't good. I would say they've had three rookie defenders who were immediate starters and good right away - Seymour, Mayo, and McCourty (and Seymour and Mayo were both top-10 picks). Wilfork and Warren were more rotational as rookies; Hightower, Chandler Jones, and Malcom Brown started but were all kind of up-and-down; Meriweather and Easley didn't play much (and never really amounted to much). Expanding to the second-round guys, probably Eugene Wilson made the biggest immediate impact and it's not like he was a Pro Bowler or anything.

I think we can expect that they are likely to get a player with the first-rounder and the early second who can contribute, either playing well in a limited role or playing adequately in a larger one. We can't expect a difference-maker, not right away at least. My overarching point is that thinking about the high picks as a way to fix the defense is misguided. It still might make sense to use a high pick on a defensive player, but it will be more about the age of the safeties or Hightower being hurt all the time or building depth behind Flowers and Wise, etc. than fixing the D with those picks. Certainly if they see a QB they really like I don't think they they should pass on him because they "need" defensive help.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I guess I’m not seeing it like you do. I’m not talking about a stud defender or a Pro Bowler from day one. I realize they’d have to be incredibly lucky to have a guy like that slide to them where they are picking. But they need depth and solid, above average players in the front 7. Jesus, they just had to sign a 39 yo James Harrison because they’re so thin. I know injuries have hurt, but outside Hightower and possibly McClellin, I’m not seeing how injuries have made much impact to a defense that’s below average.

I’m also looking at it in the event we did see Brady go down. An improved defense, bolstered by 3 top 64 picks and the return of those guys goes a lot further working with Hoyer if need be then it does using one of those on a future QB. Even a declining Brady would be better served not having to throw up 30 pts a game to win. This is all to say nothing of the fact hey need to address LT long term as well. I think using a first or second on a QB - short of an Aaron Rodgers type slide - would be a mistake, but reasonable minds can differ on it.

 

[Marciano490]

I guess I’m not seeing it like you do. I’m not talking about a stud defender or a Pro Bowler from day one. I realize they’d have to be incredibly lucky to have a guy like that slide to them where they are picking. But they need depth and solid, above average players in the front 7. Jesus, they just had to sign a 39 yo James Harrison because they’re so thin. I know injuries have hurt, but outside Hightower and possibly McClellin, I’m not seeing how injuries have made much impact to a defense that’s below average.

I’m also looking at it in the event we did see Brady go down. An improved defense, bolstered by 3 top 64 picks and the return of those guys goes a lot further working with Hoyer if need be then it does using one of those on a future QB. Even a declining Brady would be better served not having to throw up 30 pts a game to win. This is all to say nothing of the fact hey need to address LT long term as well. I think using a first or second on a QB - short of an Aaron Rodgers type slide - would be a mistake, but reasonable minds can differ on it.

You know what, this is a good point. We keep talking about Brady staying all-universe or his replacement taking up the mantle, but not only is there more than one way to skin a cat, the less Brady has to do and the fewer times he has to pass, the longer he may last.

 

[Super Nomario]

I guess I’m not seeing it like you do. I’m not talking about a stud defender or a Pro Bowler from day one. I realize they’d have to be incredibly lucky to have a guy like that slide to them where they are picking. But they need depth and solid, above average players in the front 7. Jesus, they just had to sign a 39 yo James Harrison because they’re so thin. I know injuries have hurt, but outside Hightower and possibly McClellin, I’m not seeing how injuries have made much impact to a defense that’s below average.

We agree on the defense and that they need solid, above-average players in the front seven. We disagree on the best way to do this. It's tough to rely on the draft to add these players in the short term. They should look to fill out the front seven in free agency and trade, and hopefully along the way they also add somebody in the draft and through development of the young guys (Wise, Lee, Adam Butler, Valentine, Rivers, Roberts, Langi, etc.). I hope they do add defenders through the draft, but they shouldn't count on them to contribute much year one. I'd be happy with a Malcolm Butler / Collins / Trey Flowers who turns into a really good player but doesn't do much as a rookie.

I’m also looking at it in the event we did see Brady go down. An improved defense, bolstered by 3 top 64 picks and the return of those guys goes a lot further working with Hoyer if need be then it does using one of those on a future QB. Even a declining Brady would be better served not having to throw up 30 pts a game to win. This is all to say nothing of the fact hey need to address LT long term as well. I think using a first or second on a QB - short of an Aaron Rodgers type slide - would be a mistake, but reasonable minds can differ on it.

Three top-64 picks just isn't going to bolster the D as much as you think (they've done it three times - in '09, '10, and '12). I do agree it makes sense to shift to a paradigm that relies less on a QB, but they still need some kind of floor from the QB or you end up Trevor Siemianing your season away. A long-term answer at QB is one of the team's major needs now, and if the right opportunity presents itself in the draft, they should go for it. I do not think they must take a QB or must take one high, but passing on someone they like because they need defensive help is short-sighted.

 

[Ed Hillel]

Let’s be honest, too, the front seven has had some horrible injury luck this season. They’ve lost I think six LB/DE for significant portions of the year, so the best bet to fix the issues they’ve had there is to get some guys back. McClellin might not be back ever, unfortunately, but I think the rest should be and are all still under contract. The middle of the DL is young and pretty good, so I’m not too worried there, though hopefully they can replace Branch with someone younger and more consistent. If Marquis Flowers is turning into a player, all the better for LB depth.

What they’re going to need is another corner or two, with Butler set to leave. It’s not like he’s been all that good this year, for his standards, but we’ve definitely seen worse on the Patriots. Rowe might well take his slot and be ok, but they’ll need depth and an upgrade would be even better. On the good news front with Rowe, he can’t hit 50% snaps so we only lose a 4th, which I think will end up a pretty solid deal.

If we agree this is a year they should be looking QB and the first or second round is worth doing so, I really don’t think throwing their 5th at another position of such importance moving forward is going to hinder the defense.

 

[BaseballJones]

You know what, this is a good point. We keep talking about Brady staying all-universe or his replacement taking up the mantle, but not only is there more than one way to skin a cat, the less Brady has to do and the fewer times he has to pass, the longer he may last.

When Brady was young, the team succeeded with elite defense and a solid running game to go with his quality, but not statistically dominant QB play.

During his first three SB runs, he averaged 30 pass attempts per game. Since 2007, he's averaged 37 pass attempts per game. They've obviously scored more (pass defense rule changes have helped considerably, but clearly Brady is just a great QB), but it also means more hits on Brady. It would be great if they could improve the defense and the OL play to the point where they could consistently win with Brady throwing < 30 passes a game.

 

[Captaincoop]

The league has changed so much since 2001, they would probably need a time machine to win that way again.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Let’s be honest, too, the front seven has had some horrible injury luck this season. They’ve lost I think six LB/DE for significant portions of the year, so the best bet to fix the issues they’ve had there is to get some guys back. McClellin might not be back ever, unfortunately, but I think the rest should be and are all still under contract. The middle of the DL is young and pretty good, so I’m not too worried there, though hopefully they can replace Branch with someone younger and more consistent. If Marquis Flowers is turning into a player, all the better for LB depth.

What they’re going to need is another corner or two, with Butler set to leave. It’s not like he’s been all that good this year, for his standards, but we’ve definitely seen worse on the Patriots. Rowe might well take his slot and be ok, but they’ll need depth and an upgrade would be even better. On the good news front with Rowe, he can’t hit 50% snaps so we only lose a 4th, which I think will end up a pretty solid deal.

If we agree this is a year they should be looking QB and the first or second round is worth doing so, I really don’t think throwing their 5th at another position of such importance moving forward is going to hinder the defense.

They definitely had some bad injury luck but there is a major talent issue on the front seven nonetheless. Aside from High, nobody is coming back that is a particularly good bet to be a key contributor to the defense going forward. Maybe Rivers pans out, but most 3rd round picks don't and now he has missed a year of football. McClellin is probably done for good. Valentine could develop but is basically a JAG right now. Langi is an UDFA with a hot wife and a bad leg.

I agree with SN that its rare to find draftees that are impact players right away, especially if you're not picking until the end of the first round. But its not just about 2018. This defense needs an injection of front seven talent for 2019 and beyond as well. Right now the only impact players are Flowers, who will be a UFA after 2018 and likely to be expensive, and High, who may be entering the late stage Jerod Mayo period of his career. Flowers and Butler are really the only impact defensive players they've added in the last four draft/UDFA periods and it shows. Missing on Easley, Brown not turning into much more than a solid but unspectacular player, and then not having first rounders the last two years has taken a toll on the younger talent level of the team.

If they really, really like a QB prospect and somehow he happens to fall to them at the end of the 1st or early 2nd despite a ton of teams needing QB help that pick beforehand, sure go ahead, its the most important position in the game and their QB is 40. But reaching on a guy high in the draft just to put a designated Brady successor in place doesn't make a lot of sense to me given the bleakness of the defensive outlook going forward.

 

[Red Right Ankle]

The league has changed so much since 2001, they would probably need a time machine to win that way again.

Yeah, pretty much. The average team is throwing ~34 times per game this season. No way a team with Tom Brady at QB is throwing +10% less than average especially considering how much more efficient the passing game at scoring in today's NFL.

If they had a good D and a good O line, they would still throw at least as much as they do now (and simply destroy teams, rather than just beating them) as that would maximize their chances of winning every game.

 

[Marciano490]

The counterpoint is that the Broncos won a Super Bowl with below average quarterback play. Of course, I doubt we get our defense to anywhere near as good as theirs was.

 

[finnVT]

The question of defense vs qb at the top feels a little moot to me, based on the QBs likely to be available. I guess if Josh Allen drops (which I think is unlikely) you consider him there, but is there really another QB worth a late 1st/early 2nd pick? The top guys who are likely to be there (Lock, Falk, maybe Stidham?) don't seem dramatically better than the guys likely to be there in the 3rd or 4th.

 

[Saints Rest]

The Pats will have a lot of needs in this draft -- 2nd TE, LT (if Solder is too expensive to re-sign), DL, LB. And for depth purposes: QB, WR, S.
BB rarely drafts in order of priority but rather by some internal sense of BPA, relative to needs. He does seem to like the double-position-pick (Gronk/Hern; Ridley/Vereen; Rivers/Wise; Garcia/McDermott; etc.
Speaking of Garcia/McDermott, with those two plus Rivers, they will essentially have 3 first year players steeping onto the field in training camp next year long with the new rookies.

 

[Ed Hillel]

I’m not 100% sure on 2nd TE. The Pats can keep Bennett for 6 million or cut him and save it all. If his surgery is a success, I’d be surprised if he actually retires, and he won’t get a better offer so he won’t hold out. Maybe Bill cuts him and takes the money, or maybe he works out a deal down to 5 million or something, but the Pats should end up with about 40-45 million in cap space after obvious cuts so I think Bennett would be a solid option.

 

[( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)]

The question of defense vs qb at the top feels a little moot to me, based on the QBs likely to be available. I guess if Josh Allen drops (which I think is unlikely) you consider him there, but is there really another QB worth a late 1st/early 2nd pick? The top guys who are likely to be there (Lock, Falk, maybe Stidham?) don't seem dramatically better than the guys likely to be there in the 3rd or 4th.

Maybe you are more plugged into the draft then most but in December 2013 most fans of the NFL had never heard the name Jimmy Garoppolo. But just a few short months later he was a 2nd round draft pick.

Outside of the well known top guys it just seems too early to make a prediction on what QB talent will or will not be worth a pick in any round.

 

[SoxJox]

Nebraska JR QB Tanner Lee declared for the draft.

Not included in table above (because he is a JR not in the top 25, my arbitrary cutoff)...he ranked 57th in AY/A.

G / Cmp / Att / Pct / Yds / Y/A / AY/A / TD / Int / Rate
12 / 246 / 428 / 57.5 / 3143 / 7.3 / 6.7 / 23 / 16 / 129.4

 

[SMU_Sox]

Maybe you are more plugged into the draft then most but in December 2013 most fans of the NFL had never heard the name Jimmy Garoppolo. But just a few short months later he was a 2nd round draft pick.

Outside of the well known top guys it just seems too early to make a prediction on what QB talent will or will not be worth a pick in any round.

Respectfully, since 2011 or so, at least in my experience, you can find an abundance of information on prospects like Jimmy G. Matt Waldman is a guy I have followed for years and he does an extensive rookie scouting portfolio. I had a pretty good idea of who he was and his strengths and weaknesses back then. Most NFL fans probably don’t want to put in the effort but the scouting info is out there.

As for the value and guessing right... yeah that’s a tough nut to crack. It’s not just the prospect either but the coaches, players, and systems around the QB.

 

[Super Nomario]

I agree with SN that its rare to find draftees that are impact players right away, especially if you're not picking until the end of the first round. But its not just about 2018. This defense needs an injection of front seven talent for 2019 and beyond as well. Right now the only impact players are Flowers, who will be a UFA after 2018 and likely to be expensive, and High, who may be entering the late stage Jerod Mayo period of his career. Flowers and Butler are really the only impact defensive players they've added in the last four draft/UDFA periods and it shows. Missing on Easley, Brown not turning into much more than a solid but unspectacular player, and then not having first rounders the last two years has taken a toll on the younger talent level of the team.

I don't disagree with anything you wrote, really, but you could do this for the whole team, though, not just the front seven. Brady and Gronk are the two best players on the team; both are FA after 2019, Brady will be 42, and Gronk will be 30 with a long injury history. Cooks is a FA after 2018 and will be expensive. The interior OL probably is the unit on the team with the best combination of current competence and youth, but Mason is a FA after 2018 and Thuney after 2019 and both could be expensive. Some of this is just NFL reality - with four-year rookie contracts, you're turning over about half the roster every couple years - and some is the absence of talent that you refer to with the missing firsts. It's not like those picks, other than Cooks, went to offense.

They definitely had some bad injury luck but there is a major talent issue on the front seven nonetheless. Aside from High, nobody is coming back that is a particularly good bet to be a key contributor to the defense going forward. Maybe Rivers pans out, but most 3rd round picks don't and now he has missed a year of football. McClellin is probably done for good. Valentine could develop but is basically a JAG right now. Langi is an UDFA with a hot wife and a bad leg.

It's not just these guys but also development from the young guys who are playing, like Wise, Eric Lee, Adam Butler, Rowe, and Jonathan Jones, that's going to determine the fate of the D in future years.

The other question is whether they need top-end talent or just to be solid across the board. I don't think (for instance) Valentine is going to be a world-beater, but he should be fine as a run-down nose. If they need top-end talent, they're probably going to be in trouble where they're picking anyway.

If they really, really like a QB prospect and somehow he happens to fall to them at the end of the 1st or early 2nd despite a ton of teams needing QB help that pick beforehand, sure go ahead, its the most important position in the game and their QB is 40. But reaching on a guy high in the draft just to put a designated Brady successor in place doesn't make a lot of sense to me given the bleakness of the defensive outlook going forward.

I don't think they should "reach" either (ugh, I hate that word), but I do think a long-term solution at the QB position needs to be one of their priorities in the next couple drafts. It doesn't have to be a first-rounder and it doesn't even have to be 2018, but as you say, it's the most important position in the game. I don't think they should force-feed defense either if they don't like the options where they're picking.

 

[thehitcat]

The Pats will have a lot of needs in this draft -- 2nd TE, LT (if Solder is too expensive to re-sign), DL, LB. And for depth purposes: QB, WR, S.
BB rarely drafts in order of priority but rather by some internal sense of BPA, relative to needs. He does seem to like the double-position-pick (Gronk/Hern; Ridley/Vereen; Rivers/Wise; Garcia/McDermott; etc.
Speaking of Garcia/McDermott, with those two plus Rivers, they will essentially have 3 first year players steeping onto the field in training camp next year long with the new rookies.

One quibble we cut McDermott and he's on the Bills active Roster.

 

[BunnzMcGinty]

This is all moot since Jimmy's only signing a 3 year deal in San Francisco, so that when TB12 retires in 3 years, Jimmy can come home, thanks to a silent handshake deal he made with BB to spare him from the Browns.

 

[Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt]

Mason they may break the bank for, but if they give Thuney a bunch of cash, I'd be surprised. He's been pretty disappointing this season. Mason will be a pro bowler soon, and should be now.

 

[tims4wins]

Since we don’t have a draft thread yet, can we talk a bit about Sam Darnold? He went out last night by putting up 7 points against Ohio State. Is he a legit top tier prospect the way guys like Luck were?

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

I don't disagree with anything you wrote, really, but you could do this for the whole team, though, not just the front seven...

I'm on board with everything you wrote, and especially this sentiment. Rosters turn over so rapidly and the draft process is so random that its hard to predict the future. But I'm not very bullish on how this team's talent level will look in three years.

 

[Valek123]

To the experts: Is there any chance Lamar Jackson can duplicate (not exactly, but close) what Watson did? Not immediately, but eventually? Or is his accuracy simply not good enough?

I'm no expert, but if you asked me that question last year I would have said no. This year he seems to have improved his ability as a passer and I think it's more possible. Would be interesting to see Josh and BB with a qb who can be a pocket passer and have wheels.

Huge puff piece on him right now on ESPN written by his agent, I mean an ESPN reporter...

 

[mikeot]

This is all moot since Jimmy's only signing a 3 year deal in San Francisco, so that when TB12 retires in 3 years, Jimmy can come home, thanks to a silent handshake deal he made with BB to spare him from the Browns.

This is intriguing, how fact-based is it? Evidence, please.

 

[DJnVa]

Are you asking for evidence of someone's prediction?

 

[Mystic Merlin]

I'm on board with everything you wrote, and especially this sentiment. Rosters turn over so rapidly and the draft process is so random that its hard to predict the future. But I'm not very bullish on how this team's talent level will look in three years.

Of course, all it takes is a huge draft and some reasonable progression from young talent already on the roster.

Look at New Orleans this year.