I think we’re more or less thinking about this the same way. I might just be saying it poorly.
2018 Draft: Patriots and QBs
- Thread starter DJnVa
- Start date
I think we’re more or less thinking about this the same way. I might just be saying it poorly.
How would it have changed anything? You would still have the greatest of all times as the QB and wanting to stay as the QB. And you'd have no reasonably economic way to keep his understudy in place. But the resolution of that issue would be 1 year later. So what?
I think it would have increased the return they got for him if they traded him in the off-season instead of at the trade deadline. Plus if they had him for the fifth year option it would have reduced the draft need for this year's draft. That and another year of backing up a now 41 year old Brady would be valuable.
Lamar Jackson paid us a visit:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/04/23/patriots-brought-lamar-jackson-in-for-a-visit/
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/04/23/patriots-brought-lamar-jackson-in-for-a-visit/
He’s my binky and I really want this to happen. Get him a year or two learning behind Brady and McD and then let him loose.
I couldn’t disagree more.
Patriots aside, I’m pretty sure there are a lot more SB winners with deep rosters and mediocre QBs than ones who won with a “franchise QB” and a mediocre roster.
In the former category, I think you can put Eagles, Broncos (2015), Seahawks (maybe), Giants x2, Ravens x2, many others, including all the Bradshaw Steelers, and the Griese Dolphins.
In the latter category: Rams, Colts, Saints, Packers.
Then think about all the HOF QBs (or HOF-locks) who repeatedly fail to make the playoffs due to sorry supporting casts: Brees, Rodgers, Marino, etc
And now a Sam Darnold to NE mock!!!
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/news/2018-nfl-mock-draft-patriots-land-sam-darnold-in-wild-draft-day-trade-with-browns/
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/news/2018-nfl-mock-draft-patriots-land-sam-darnold-in-wild-draft-day-trade-with-browns/
I would do this in a cocaine heartbeat. I think Jackson will be the best QB from this draft. Check at Matt Waldman's analysis of Jackson's poise and decision-making:
If I'm the Pats, I find a way to trade up into the teens and snag him.
If you can replace 2 of the 3, or all 3 of the picks traded, with Brady, do you do it?
Browns obviously don't if they think it's 1 year what if you convince them he can play for 4 years? (Not that I think they'd make the deal in either scenario)
From a pure value standpoint, of course you would. From a “don’t screw over the GOAT who has won you 5 SBs” standpoint, no chance in hell.
So, trade away the guy who you already invested 3 years in and who you know can run the offense (for a below-market return), then overpay to pick up a new guy who might be able to do the same. Then trade Brady anyway?
Just noticed on the point value chart that the points for 23rd (760) and 31st (600) just about equal the points for 9th pick (1350), which belongs to the 49ers. Would be nice if the Jimmy G trade engendered some goodwill between the clubs in case the Pats wanted to trade up to grab a QB, with the added bonus of picking one before the raft of teams in the teens that need a QB, including the Bills and Phins.
The only problem with this is that both Buffalo and Miami could move up higher than 9. I expect one of them will actually do so with the Colts
I hadn't thought about a Colts trade, do you think a Colts trade will happen before the draft or during the draft?
Unless it's a no-brainer gift from another team, I don't think the Pats should make a move before the draft; they have to see what happens in the top 10. There's too much uncertainty and they have to see if their guy is still there. That said, doing the groundwork with the 49ers for a draft-day move beforehand might be a bit easier than if they hadn't just had a big trade six months ago.
Last edited:
It's a fair argument to make. I think the pivot point from recent Superbowl history is how you define the QBs from these winners....
"Seahawks (maybe), Giants x2, Ravens x2,"
If you rank these guys as above average starters then my approach may make more sense to you.
If you rank these guys as mediocre QBs then what you're suggesting makes a lot of sense
I don't want to quibble over the definition of mediocre QB. I think that if you ask 100 people if Wilson, Eli Manning and Joe Flacco are above average, average or below average as QBs that you'd get a fairly even distribution in the answers. I'm of the belief that if you guaranteed me that I could get QB play similar to those three guys in this draft then I'd spend a lot of draft capital to go get him. But reasonable minds will differ on that opinion, this is a gray area.
Wasn’t one of the Ravens’ wins with Dilfer, who was decidedly below average?
I guess the other question, looking at those teams, is if it’s easier to hit on a very good QB or to hit on a bunch of players to make up a very, very good defense.
If any given year there are 4-5 great QBs you can win a SB with (which I’d imagine is true year by year) how many teams have great defenses that can carry an offense year by year?
Yes. There are more direct ways of putting the horse back in the barn.
The Darnold thing is nuts. But if we’re playing the shits and giggles game, offer TB for JG plus. Hell, fold in Gronk for their no.9 pick, and Guerrero goes too.
So you have 9, 23, 31 and two second rounders to reload.
I know Kraft does not go for this. B.B.?
Yes, Dilfer in 2000. But that Ravens defense today exists nowhere. Not even close, and it’s a completely different League rules wise and otherwise.
That Ravens team went 5 straight weeks during which they failed to score even one TD on offense. They went 2 and 3 during that stretch.
I remember thinking when the JG deal went down that they might have been smarter to offer TB12 to the 49ers.
Now, though, SF would want JG more ... and a hypothetical trade for TB12 wouldn't bring back as much as people might want to believe
Whether Manning, Flacco and Wilson are elite QBs or not, each of them also played at a very high level during the playoffs in the year they won their teams won. You don't need a great quarterback to win the superbowl but you do need a quarterback who plays great--and an awful lot of things have to go your team's way to get high level QB play in the playoffs from an average or below average starter.
San Francisco wouldn't entertain that offer for a second.
It would be interesting to look at what Brady would return in a trade. The market would be small and my guess is the return would be as well.
It would be interesting to look at what Brady would return in a trade. The market would be small and my guess is the return would be as well.
Agree.
Per Yaz’ point, SF was the ideal TB destination if you were inclined to trade him. It’s home. It’s a great city and improving team. And Lynch asked about TB when he originally approached B.B. about JG, about a year ago, and B.B. said no.
This is a very good point and one that would apply to Foles as well.
And to look at the flip side, it's now been what 18 years, since the league MVP won the Super Bowl? (Warner in 2000)
Your point is well-taken. And for me, it's not just about above-average vis mediocre, but how you define a "franchise QB". My premise is that you don't need a HOF-level QB; you don't even need a All-Pro level QB. You do need someone who can at least be considered a Pro-Bowl level QB, I would agree, but only in the sense of his play in that year. You don't need a guy who can be a Pro-Bowler every year -- to me, that is what you might define as a "Franchise QB."
Personally, I would include Wilson, Big Ben, Rodgers, Brees, Brady (obviously) in that category, but not Flacco, Eli, or any of the other QB's who have made it to the SB without even a Pro Bowl.
Put another way, I would rather take my chances with multiple All-Pros on both sides of the ball, with a serviceable QB (ideally one who gets hot at just the right time) than with a GOAT QB and a bunch of JAGs surrounding him. So I would rather use all the picks (or even leverage them for more picks) to try to fill in the multiple holes that seem to be springing up rather than push all those chips into the middle for a roll of the dice on a "franchise QB".
Look at the Pro Bowl QBs from the last two years, including replacements:
Brady
Big Ben
Andy Dalton
Alex Smith
Derek Carr
Philip Rivers
Drew Brees
Dak Prescott
Matt Ryan
Kirk Cousins
Carson Wentz
Jared Goff
Russell Wilson
Now look at how many were drafted in the top 15 overall: Rivers, Smith, Big Ben, Ryan, Goff, Wentz. (6 out of 13)
There are really two formulas for being a Super Bowl contender. One is getting MVP-caliber play from your QB. The other is to get decent QB play from a QB on a cheap contract that lets you fill out the rest of your team with top talent - think Philly this year, Seattle in Wilson's first few years, Pittsburgh in the mid-2000's, NE in the early '00's. It is actually pretty unusual for a high-paid QB to win a Super Bowl, though there's at least a little flukiness there.
You can definitely win a championship with OK QB play and a great D, but that's harder to keep together than the converse. Denver put it together for one year, Baltimore for a year, Chicago for a year, Tampa, but you can't deliver those historical-type results year in and year out. Seattle did for about three-four years but that's really rare. Defenses are generally as strong as their weakest link and with the cap it's difficult to sustain. To be a sustained playoff team, high-level QB play seems like the best formula. NE makes the playoffs every year, as did Peyton's teams. Rodgers makes it every year he's healthy, as does Big Ben. Historically-bad Ds kept Brees' Saints out at times, but they're there any time they play a lick of D.
Not entirely. Eli was terrible in the NFCCG in 2011. Foles was lousy in the divisional round against Atlanta this year. Peyton was pretty lousy in both his SB runs despite being a great QB overall. Brady was nothing special in 2001. There's no magic formula; you gotta win three-four games in a row. Obviously that's easier to do with great QB play but there's more than one way to skin a cat.
SB-winning QBs since 2000:
2000: Trent Dilfer
2001: Tom Brady
2002: Brad Johnson
2003: Tom Brady
2004: Tom Brady
2005: Ben Roethlisberger
2006: Peyton Manning
2007: Eli Manning
2008: Ben Roethlisberger
2009: Drew Brees
2010: Aaron Rodgers
2011: Eli Manning
2012: Joe Flacco
2013: Russell Wilson
2014: Tom Brady
2015: Peyton Manning
2016: Tom Brady
2017: Nick Foles
Elite HOF: Brady (5), P.Manning (2), Brees (1), Rodgers (1)
HOF/borderline HOF: Roethlisberger (2), E.Manning (2)
Solid player: Wilson (1)
Decent player: Flacco (1), Foles (1), Johnson (1)
Just not that great: Dilfer (1)
9 of the 18 SBs from 2000-2017 were won by elite HOF quarterbacks, although there's a caveat to that (see below). 4 of the 18 were won by guys who are borderline HOF players or guys who will get in. One by a solid player, and four by guys who were no better than decent (22%).
Caveat: Brady in 2001 and Peyton in both cases simply weren't really great in those SB runs. Brady was fine, just nothing special. Peyton in both cases was pretty horrendous actually. Of course, Foles is a decent player who played like an inner-circle HOFer during this past postseason, and Flacco was also very good during his championship run. So yeah, more than one way to skin a cat, and even if you tend to not rely on your QB, maybe it takes your marginal QB to play lights out to win - Philly gets crushed by NE if Foles doesn't have a spectacular performance. But conversely, if your defense is incredible (Bal 2000, TB 2002, Den 2015, Sea 2013), you really don't need tremendous QB play to win it all.
EDIT: Just because this is fun... Look at the four ELITE HOF quarterbacks. Tom F-ing Brady has more rings than the other three COMBINED. Brady (5); PManning (2) + Brees (1) + Rodgers (1) = 4. Absolutely incredible. Ok, carry on.
2000: Trent Dilfer
2001: Tom Brady
2002: Brad Johnson
2003: Tom Brady
2004: Tom Brady
2005: Ben Roethlisberger
2006: Peyton Manning
2007: Eli Manning
2008: Ben Roethlisberger
2009: Drew Brees
2010: Aaron Rodgers
2011: Eli Manning
2012: Joe Flacco
2013: Russell Wilson
2014: Tom Brady
2015: Peyton Manning
2016: Tom Brady
2017: Nick Foles
Elite HOF: Brady (5), P.Manning (2), Brees (1), Rodgers (1)
HOF/borderline HOF: Roethlisberger (2), E.Manning (2)
Solid player: Wilson (1)
Decent player: Flacco (1), Foles (1), Johnson (1)
Just not that great: Dilfer (1)
9 of the 18 SBs from 2000-2017 were won by elite HOF quarterbacks, although there's a caveat to that (see below). 4 of the 18 were won by guys who are borderline HOF players or guys who will get in. One by a solid player, and four by guys who were no better than decent (22%).
Caveat: Brady in 2001 and Peyton in both cases simply weren't really great in those SB runs. Brady was fine, just nothing special. Peyton in both cases was pretty horrendous actually. Of course, Foles is a decent player who played like an inner-circle HOFer during this past postseason, and Flacco was also very good during his championship run. So yeah, more than one way to skin a cat, and even if you tend to not rely on your QB, maybe it takes your marginal QB to play lights out to win - Philly gets crushed by NE if Foles doesn't have a spectacular performance. But conversely, if your defense is incredible (Bal 2000, TB 2002, Den 2015, Sea 2013), you really don't need tremendous QB play to win it all.
EDIT: Just because this is fun... Look at the four ELITE HOF quarterbacks. Tom F-ing Brady has more rings than the other three COMBINED. Brady (5); PManning (2) + Brees (1) + Rodgers (1) = 4. Absolutely incredible. Ok, carry on.
A cute move by Reiss to write that the Pats will draft a QB in the first three rounds. The real question is whether a QB is drafted in the first two rounds, and he gave himself some wiggle room.Given BB's "value" mantra in drafting and the great washout rate for QBs in the NFL, I still think using a first-round pick is unlikely, and using chips to move up to pick a QB looks even more unlikely. Pats could use a second-round pick if they really like somebody, but otherwise not draft a QB (or 2) until later rounds.
What's interesting from this list is that only five of them were not first round picks.
Brady is the outlier of all outliers here. kind of a special case.
Brees - First pick of the 2nd round
Foles - Third round, 88th pick
Wilson - Third round, 75th pick
Johnson - Ninth Round, 22th pick
I read all the posts about the path towards winning a super bowl not requiring HOF QB play but instead requiring a QB that can play well enough during an important stretch of games. I 100% agree with that assessment. The QB is not the end-all-be-all towards winning a Super Bowl.
But over the past 17 years you pretty much had to spend a first round pick to find a QB that is capable of hitting that hard to define "good enough" bar. Johnson did it with an all world defense. Wilson had an all world defense as well, but also appears to be significantly under drafted. Brees could have very well been a first round pick if there was one more QB hungry team during that draft. Brady is Brady and breaks the mold. Foles is kind of the only non-Brady outlier in that list. That Eagles defense was good, but it wasn't the 2013 Seahawks or 2002 Bucs.
So this kind of goes back to my original point. If there is a QB that they grade as a first rounder and they have an opportunity to go get him, then I'd prefer that they spend the draft capital to do so vs. waiting to draft a QB in round 2 or 3.
(there is probably some pretty good confirmation bias here by looking at just a list of 17 Super Bowl winners. A couple things go the other way in some Playoff games and a few more non-first round QBs could be on that list)
Winning the SB can be a bit of a crap shoot. I think the better metric is teams who make the playoffs. Most teams who make the playoffs have a top 15 QB. Let's not forget that Eagles had HFA throughout the playoffs because of their great D and Wentz.
The other part of winning with a rookie or mid-tier QB is having a very good rest of the roster. Others have said it during this off-season but this is really a two year window to infuse young talent into the roster. If you're spending a first round pick on Lauletta you're doing it wrong. QBs get pushed up the boards, especially ones with big arms, but Lauletta to the first by the Patriots would make Jordan Richards look like good value in the 2nd.
The other part of winning with a rookie or mid-tier QB is having a very good rest of the roster. Others have said it during this off-season but this is really a two year window to infuse young talent into the roster. If you're spending a first round pick on Lauletta you're doing it wrong. QBs get pushed up the boards, especially ones with big arms, but Lauletta to the first by the Patriots would make Jordan Richards look like good value in the 2nd.
That great Eagle D....that Brady and the Patriots absolutely SHREDDED in the Super Bowl..... ugh. It's almost impossible to imagine a scenario whereby the Patriots score 33 points, put up 600+ yards, Brady throwing for 505 with no picks, and the Patriots lose.
-bangs head against the wall-
-bangs head against the wall-
Patriots got to their 8th Super Bowl. They have the 6th most valuable draft capital in this year’s draft. It’s going to be ok.
Look, if they weren't this consistently great we wouldn't have the maddening moments.
And hey, look what we get to look forward to. A shiny new QB prospect, probably.
If they double-dip I would think Mike White, Luke Falk, Kyle Lauletta, Logan Woodside are the next tier of guys for them. The first 3 had a visit. Or maybe they take 2 guys in the later rounds Lauletta and someone with a better arm.
I've really talked myself out of them getting any of the big 5. If Rosen or Lamar drop and wind up in New England (not likely) I will donate $25 to the Jimmy Fund and, if it is Jackson, I will be buying that jersey. I think we could make some charitable bets in this thread. Have a little fun with this.
Here's another bet I want to make... If the Jets, Bills, or Fins draft Josh Allen, $25 to the Jimmy Fund. Why? This is somewhat mean spirited but I think he is the most likely to bust of the QB prospects in the first round.
I'll throw $10 per favorite or binkie selected too, that includes any picks I made in the favorites/binkies thread or predict the Pats draft. I will come up with more later.
I'll throw $10 per favorite or binkie selected too, that includes any picks I made in the favorites/binkies thread or predict the Pats draft. I will come up with more later.
Last edited:
I’ll do $100 if either Jackson or Landry get taken by Pats. Went to BC so I desperately want Landry on this team. As stated before, Jackson is my binky and preferred Brady successor.
My top 6 guys I want the Pats to take in the first: 1) Lamar Jackson, 2) Harold Landry, 3) Maurice Hurst, 4) Sam Hubbard 5) LVE, 6) Mike Mcglinchey.
Edit: I also love Minkah, Edmunds, and Roquan. All year these guys were considered top 10 or at least top 15 locks. Silly season has scenarios where these guys are sliding to 18+. Not sure I buy that.
Order is somewhat fluid but man I am with you every ounce of the way with Landry. SN and I had a small back-and-forth on it in Wait Who but the gist of it is this: Pats are looking at Edge and Edge/LB hard. That is usually a good predictor for who they draft. Landry tested up there with the best ever for his position with his height/weight for 40 and 3-cone and it put him on a short list with, thanks ITP draft guide, Jamie Collins. But Pats typically don't go pass rusher in the first round and have not since Chandler Jones, another athletic guy. They also want someone who can do more than just rush the passer and of the Edge/LBs he is the most pin-ears back. Hubbard is the more versatile guy at the position. Carter is also crazy athletic and could do both as well.
Last edited:
Amusing. Historically yes, it is always a new day until you wake up and realize yesterday was the same as before. For Buffalo it has been groundhogs day now since the mid 1990's.
I want to end up giving money. I want to have fun and be amused doing it. I don't want to actually bet on this - although you certainly can. Lots of draft prop bets are up.
Nice. I’ll do $25 on the day that Jordan Richards is cut. This offer does not expire.
I semi-irrationally loathe him and Elandon Roberts. You got Richards so I will take Roberts.
Still can’t believe I lost that Tavon Wilson bet (that he would play out his contract). Might well have cost them a SB in 2015 when he tackled his own player in the Jets game in OT, too.
“Irrationally???”
Oh, I have. Sad thing for all of us — probably autocorrect.Are you sure you haven't lost it yet?
Redskins just had pre draft presser. For what it is worth, reading between the lines, they are not trading up from 13, very open to trading down.
I've got something coming out in the next day or so over at Pro Football Weekly on this, and why we might see six first round QBs this year. The economics are such that teams can take the risk on a rookie QB because if they play well, they're cost-controlled and you can be aggressive addressing other needs, and if they play poorly, they're easier to move on from than say a huge free agency bust. Last year, half of the playoff teams had a starting QB taking up a lower percentage of their team's salary cap than the league average (league average being 8% of a team's cap). Four of those teams (Jacksonville, Tennessee, Philly and the Rams) while the other two had a free agency bargain (Buffalo and Tyrod, Minnesota and Keenum).
The Seattle example is a good one. You can look to the Rams this offseason as well. Goff accounts for just 4.15% of their cap next year, and look at the players they added this offseason. At some point that bill comes due, but until then you can really maximize that window with a cost-controlled QB.