2021 NFL: QB Carousel

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
10,029
That's a good list. I'm hard-pressed to think of anyone else in the last 25-30 years.

EDIT: And yes, Leaf was definitely a bust.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,660
Santa Monica, CA
If you're sitting at #4, the overwhelming likelihood is that you're picking either your 3rd or 4th choice at QB.

I can't imagine it makes sense in most cases to do that instead of taking the guy you evaluate as, say, the best defensive player in the entire draft. Or the best lineman or the best receiver.

But as a fan of a team with the 15th pick, I say go ahead and do that, and I hope someone takes the 5th best quarterback ahead of us too.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
37,753
If you watch the crawl in that tweet, McSHay has the Pats taking Parsons at 15. I'd be happy with that.
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.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
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.
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.
 

Zososoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2009
6,383
South of North
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.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
37,753
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.
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:

Chase (WR)
Smith (WR)
Waddle (WR)
Pitts (TE/WR)
Sewell (OL)

All those guys are pretty much locks with possible exception of Waddle due to his size. So, now you need 4 more out of this group:

Slater (OL)
Surtain (CB)
Farley (CB)
Darrisaw (OL)
Paye (DL)
Vera-Tucker (OL)

Actually, now that I look at it, it isn't completely out of the realm of possibility like I originally thought. Guys like Slater, Surtain, Farley, Darrisaw are all elite prospects who teams may value over Parsons depending on team need. Really is annoying this team didn't lose 1 more game. Would have moved up to #12 and in prime position for Pitts/Parsons without having to sacrifice any additional assets. Even if both of those guys are gone, there should be a good player remaining at #15.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,149
Mansfield MA
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.
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.
 

Zososoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2009
6,383
South of North
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.
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.

That being said, how would you compare Wilson, Lance, Trask, and Jones? Do Wilson and Lance have enough tools/performance to put them ahead?
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
43,086
That being said, how would you compare Wilson, Lance, Trask, and Jones? Do Wilson and Lance have enough tools/performance to put them ahead?
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.

EDIT: That might sound snarkier than I intended it to be. No one has Jones/Trask ahead of those guys.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
43,086
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 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.
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
10,029
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.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,660
Santa Monica, CA
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.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
19,579
I help myself go to sleep at night by saying that Ryan Fitzpatrick is the worst case scenario.
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.
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
10,029
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.
Right, he's the worst case scenario and one that's ahead of bringing Cam back (or just going with Stidham as starter).
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
19,579
Right, he's the worst case scenario and one that's ahead of bringing Cam back (or just going with Stidham as starter).
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)
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
10,029
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)
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.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
12,638
New York City
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.
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.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,660
Santa Monica, CA
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.
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.
 

SMU_Sox

loves his fluffykins
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
6,828
Dallas
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.
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.
 

SMU_Sox

loves his fluffykins
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
6,828
Dallas
Honestly with Parsons imo his tape isn’t flawless - the guy is over aggressive and doesn’t stick to run fit discipline. He is however the best edge in this class and his position isn’t even full time edge. Parsons and Uche with Hightower next year would be legit ridiculous. They’d still have to fill out that front 3-4 guys on the IDL and edge but that would be a stupid good LB corps.

Edit sorry to interrupt the QB discussion.

Just so y’all know where I stand: trade up and get one of: Wilson/Fields/Lance. You want a legit game changer? For my money I think they like Fields the most of these guys because he’s the closest to Watson I’ve seen coming out. Bill and Josh were completely enamored with Watson. If he falls to 6-7-8? I know we haven’t seen Bill be THAT aggressive before but if it were me I’d pull the trigger.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
37,753
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.
Any idea of the nature of the off the field stuff?
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
67,816
Oregon
Any idea of the nature of the off the field stuff?
Migh be this

Humphries 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.”

 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
12,638
New York City
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 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
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,660
Santa Monica, CA
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?

You can be damn sure there's a game changing defensive player or two in the draft, worth taking before settling for the 4th or 5th quarterback on your board.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,149
Mansfield MA
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
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)
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,718
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.
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.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,718
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?
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.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
12,638
New York City
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 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
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,660
Santa Monica, CA
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
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.
 

Pablo's TB Lover

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 10, 2017
2,319
You're not going to pay a lot for...

Yes, or we're in for another long season.
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.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,149
Mansfield MA
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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
12,638
New York City
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.
Ok this is kind of all over the map but here are a couple points:

1.) My whole point is that _if_ Belichick thinks there's an average QB available at 15 he might take that guy over a significantly better player at another position. I have no idea whether Jones or someone else is that guy. If he thinks Mac Jones kind of sucks and some tackle is way better, I assume he picks the tackle.

2.) It's irrelevant to me that the player the pats are picking at 15 would be the fourth or fifth QB draft. Maybe the other players are all good or maybe somebody pick Trubisky instead of Watson or Mahomes. All that matters is your evaluation.

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.

4.) You're vastly overestimating how good the talent pool is at 15. Ryan Shazier, Kenny Vaccaro, Bruce irvin, Mike Pouncey, Jason Pierre Paul, Melvin Gordon, Malik Hooker, Kolton Miller, Corey Coleman--you might get a very good player but you're far from sure of getting an impact player.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
19,579
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.
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?
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
12,638
New York City
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?
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.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
26,275
Hingham, MA
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.
I think the point is that teams that go down this path don't stay good.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
19,579
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.
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
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
12,638
New York City
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
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?
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
26,275
Hingham, MA
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?
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.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
5,344
New York City
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.

In any event the underlying point is incorrect - no team would ever spend a first-round pick on a QB the team thinks is only going to be "average" (with the possible exception of a good team drafting late in the first round that thinks they are just a QB away from serious contention). Certainly there are tons of first-round QBs who turn out to be average, but presumably they were all drafted with the hope/expectation they'd be considerably better than that.

Put another way, if BB and Pats look at Mac Jones and think "sure maybe this guy will turn out to be league-average, but we really think in our system with some coaching he has a chance to be much better than that," then the pick makes sense. But if they look at Mac Jones and think "there is very little chance this guy turns out to be anything more than league average" there is no way they are going to draft him anyway just because they feel like they have to marginally improve from Cam.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
19,579
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.
The Bills made the playoffs behind average QB play from Tyrod, the dumped him for a 3rd and reset.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
12,638
New York City
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.
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.

And Tyrod was very far from being an average QB.