2021 Pats: QB Options

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,149
Mansfield MA
This feels true but looking over the numbers I'm not so sure. Wentz's passing numbers are a little better overall, but you could argue Mariota's rushing makes up a significant chunk of it. Outside of Wentz's 2017, clearly the best year either guy has had, their PFF ratings are pretty similar too. I'd say it's close enough that the systems and surrounding talent introduce enough noise that it's an open question which one would perform better with the 2021 Pats. I think I'm with Time to Mo Vaughn here if only because Mariota is so much cheaper, both his contract and likely his acquisition cost.
Mariota's contract is not a lot cheaper (it's $10 MM but balloons to about double that if he's the full-time starter), but more significantly, it's only for one year. That means even if the reclamation project works, then you're in a position of having to pay market after that. OTOH, Wentz has a lot more guaranteed money (his whole 2021 salary), but he's got three more years at ~25MMish, which is a pretty good contract if he can reclaim, say, his 2018 form.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
11,446
Maybe it's already been done in this thread, but let's look at the realistic QB options:

Big ticket items: Wilson and Watson

Modest possibilities with potentially some acquisition cost: Jimmy G, Mariota

Should be able to acquire as free agents: Fitzpatrick, Prescott, Trubisky, Taylor, Brissett, Newton, Dalton

Draft possibilities: Jones, Trask, Mond, Newman, Franks, Ramsey, Ehlinger, Costello, Book, Mills

Wilson or Watson would be amazing additions, but at an absolutely enormous acquisition cost. Still, might be worth it. Trading for JG or Mariota would give the Pats a veteran with some upside, but not likely pro bowl play at the QB position. JG might slip into the third category as well, if he gets released. There's some veterans on that FA list, with Prescott being the wild card there. He might be locked up by Dallas, but if he's not, the bidding for him should be sky high as there wouldn't be any acquisition cost, and he could give you pro-bowl play for years to come. And in the draft the Pats won't likely be able to get any of the top guys, but there might be some guys there that have legit NFL futures.

Who am I missing in this list? Gotta be someone I'm forgetting. Obviously keeping Stidham on the roster is something they could do but I'm guessing he's not in the plans as QB1 next year.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
19,595
Who am I missing in this list? Gotta be someone I'm forgetting. Obviously keeping Stidham on the roster is something they could do but I'm guessing he's not in the plans as QB1 next year.
Darnold is probably available depending on what they do in the draft/trade market. Minshew is very available.

My general feeling is if you're not getting a top QB trading for one is a wasted asset, sign a cheap FA, and draft one.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
7,468
Westwood MA
Maybe it's already been done in this thread, but let's look at the realistic QB options:

Big ticket items: Wilson and Watson

Modest possibilities with potentially some acquisition cost: Jimmy G, Mariota

Should be able to acquire as free agents: Fitzpatrick, Prescott, Trubisky, Taylor, Brissett, Newton, Dalton

Draft possibilities: Jones, Trask, Mond, Newman, Franks, Ramsey, Ehlinger, Costello, Book, Mills

Wilson or Watson would be amazing additions, but at an absolutely enormous acquisition cost. Still, might be worth it. Trading for JG or Mariota would give the Pats a veteran with some upside, but not likely pro bowl play at the QB position. JG might slip into the third category as well, if he gets released. There's some veterans on that FA list, with Prescott being the wild card there. He might be locked up by Dallas, but if he's not, the bidding for him should be sky high as there wouldn't be any acquisition cost, and he could give you pro-bowl play for years to come. And in the draft the Pats won't likely be able to get any of the top guys, but there might be some guys there that have legit NFL futures.

Who am I missing in this list? Gotta be someone I'm forgetting. Obviously keeping Stidham on the roster is something they could do but I'm guessing he's not in the plans as QB1 next year.
Thanks for taking the time to put this list together.

This may be simplistic, but they are either going to have to pay a kings ransom for a top tier QB, get lucky on a reclamation project (they took a shot last year and Cam was awful), or draft someone and hope and pray you get lucky and he's able to start right away and be productive.

All I can say is what a treat to have a QB like Brady for 19 years; he gave them many more years of top shelf production than you'd expect from the position, they got him in the 6th round/199th overall and the return on that investment was phenomenal, sometimes luck is involved when it comes to drafting/building a roster.

At the time of their parting of the ways, I was in the camp of "It's time to move on, you have to move on from him sooner or later anyway".............after seeing what he did this year (granted he had a shit ton of talent around him), I now feel like they should have worked something out to keep him, they could have gotten another two or three years of production from the position.

Hindsight is always 20/20 and it's early in the game, but my concern is the QB position is going to be a problem going forward; it's a QB driven league, the final 4 teams this year all have a top shelf QB and without that, you're pretty much doomed.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
11,446
I think the Pats would be reasonable to hope Jimmy G gets released, and then sign him and draft a QB with some potential in rounds 2 or 3. Keep Stidham as the #2. If JG doesn't get released, see what SF will take in a trade. If the trade is too much, move on to sign Fitz and then draft the best QB you can in round 1.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
7,468
Westwood MA
I think the Pats would be reasonable to hope Jimmy G gets released, and then sign him and draft a QB with some potential in rounds 2 or 3. Keep Stidham as the #2. If JG doesn't get released, see what SF will take in a trade. If the trade is too much, move on to sign Fitz and then draft the best QB you can in round 1.
In order for that to happen, then SF would have another QB lined up; have you read anything to that effect, ie, someone they have their eye on?

I really can't recall an off season where so many QB's were rumored to be on the move, a lot of moving parts across the league.
 

Bowser

lurker
Sep 27, 2019
64
If the Pats' goal this offseason is to land the QB of the Future, defined as an above average QB (or one with the potential to be above average) who'll they'll have for the next 3-5 years, then this list is reduced substantially. Watson, Wilson, and Dak are unlikely to be available or will be cost prohibitive, though I'd pay almost any price for the first two. If they signed Carr, Jimmy G, or Mac Jones and I squinted hard, I could maybe see a future playoff run. But Cam + Jamie Newman or Fitz + Trask? Hard to see how the playoffs are anything but a distant fantasy.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK3Jx2yvtVE
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,149
Mansfield MA
Maybe it's already been done in this thread, but let's look at the realistic QB options:

Big ticket items: Wilson and Watson

Modest possibilities with potentially some acquisition cost: Jimmy G, Mariota

Should be able to acquire as free agents: Fitzpatrick, Prescott, Trubisky, Taylor, Brissett, Newton, Dalton

Draft possibilities: Jones, Trask, Mond, Newman, Franks, Ramsey, Ehlinger, Costello, Book, Mills

Wilson or Watson would be amazing additions, but at an absolutely enormous acquisition cost. Still, might be worth it. Trading for JG or Mariota would give the Pats a veteran with some upside, but not likely pro bowl play at the QB position. JG might slip into the third category as well, if he gets released. There's some veterans on that FA list, with Prescott being the wild card there. He might be locked up by Dallas, but if he's not, the bidding for him should be sky high as there wouldn't be any acquisition cost, and he could give you pro-bowl play for years to come. And in the draft the Pats won't likely be able to get any of the top guys, but there might be some guys there that have legit NFL futures.

Who am I missing in this list? Gotta be someone I'm forgetting. Obviously keeping Stidham on the roster is something they could do but I'm guessing he's not in the plans as QB1 next year.
A couple minor guys you're missing (like, Joe Flacco), but no one worth writing home about. As a strategy, I think the other option is a big trade up for Lance or Fields (or less likely, Wilson). I don't view it as a likely option, but it's a reasonable one.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
11,446
A couple minor guys you're missing (like, Joe Flacco), but no one worth writing home about. As a strategy, I think the other option is a big trade up for Lance or Fields (or less likely, Wilson). I don't view it as a likely option, but it's a reasonable one.
The trade up to get Lance or Fields would be perhaps similar to the package required to get Russell Wilson, right? If you're gonna make that kind of splash move, trade for the sure thing, though of course, now you're adding in the much bigger hit to the payroll. But at least we know that Wilson is an all-pro level guy. Lance or Fields may never amount to anything.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
67,819
Oregon
The trade up to get Lance or Fields would be perhaps similar to the package required to get Russell Wilson, right?
Wilson would cost far more. You're not trading multiple first-round picks, plus other sweeteners to get from 15 to, say, 8
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
12,414
UWS, NYC
Wilson would cost far more. You're not trading multiple first-round picks, plus other sweeteners to get from 15 to, say, 8
Historically I believe this kind of move up (to the 8-12 range, not top five) takes 2021 and 2022 firsts and a 2021 third.

I’ll assume Fields and ZWilson are off the table. I‘d consider a Cam/Lance* exacta if that were available around 1-10. Ideally you wouldn’t want to start Trask in the first part of Year 1, but the system you build for Cam would be the right shell, and Cam would be a good guy to learn from.

Having a harder time getting excited about a Fitz/Mac Jones combo, but it’d be the same idea (with a very different system). Shouldn’t have to pay much to trade up for Jones, or likely not trade up at all.

Jimmy G feels like the one guy you might be able to land who could start in 2021, and start in 2022 and 2023. I think Dak is a pipe dream.

* - edit: initially had Trask instead of Lance, back when I was an idiot...but I’m all better now.
 
Last edited:

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
26,276
Hingham, MA
The Chiefs traded 27, a 3rd rounder, and a first rounder the following year to move up from 27 to 10. It wouldn't take that much to move from 15 to 7.

By the Stuart draft chart, 7 is worth 1500 and 15 is worth 1050. 46 is worth 440. So the Pats trading 15 + 46 for 7 would be even by the Stuart chart.

Edit: the only "problem" with this is it would create a nearly 90 pick gap between picks, as the Pats next pick is at 96. BB absolutely hates that type of situation.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,149
Mansfield MA
The trade up to get Lance or Fields would be perhaps similar to the package required to get Russell Wilson, right? If you're gonna make that kind of splash move, trade for the sure thing, though of course, now you're adding in the much bigger hit to the payroll. But at least we know that Wilson is an all-pro level guy. Lance or Fields may never amount to anything.
Maybe I misunderstood your post; I thought you were cataloguing the various options. This is one of the options.

FWIWm, I haven't seen anything to suggest that Russell Wilson is actually available.

There definitely is risk in trading up for a rookie, but that's how the Chiefs got Mahomes and the Texans got Watson. I don't think the Patriots are going to mortgage the future to get up to 3, but the Bills for instance got up to 7 from 12 for 2 2s. It's probably the move with the biggest error bars - could cost a ton of draft capital and fail spectacularly, but reasonable odds to get you a franchise guy, and on a rookie contract.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
67,819
Oregon
The Chiefs traded 27, a 3rd rounder, and a first rounder the following year to move up from 27 to 10. It wouldn't take that much to move from 15 to 7.
Right ... but a team would have to dangle more than that to get Wilson, which was my original thought on this
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
26,276
Hingham, MA
Right ... but a team would have to dangle more than that to get Wilson, which was my original thought on this
Probably depends where the first rounder is but agreed that 2 firsts plus another pick is probably the starting point for Wilson
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
11,446
Maybe I misunderstood your post; I thought you were cataloguing the various options. This is one of the options.

FWIWm, I haven't seen anything to suggest that Russell Wilson is actually available.

There definitely is risk in trading up for a rookie, but that's how the Chiefs got Mahomes and the Texans got Watson. I don't think the Patriots are going to mortgage the future to get up to 3, but the Bills for instance got up to 7 from 12 for 2 2s. It's probably the move with the biggest error bars - could cost a ton of draft capital and fail spectacularly, but reasonable odds to get you a franchise guy, and on a rookie contract.
I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was just saying that if the cost for Wilson is similar to the cost to move up in the first round, I'd prefer they go ahead and make a deal for Wilson. Though you're right...he might not even be available.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
5,344
New York City
Though you're right...he might not even be available.
“Might” not? I’d say almost certainly not - he made one vague comment about how he’d like to have a little bit more input into personnel decisions.

And he also has a no trade clause, so in the very unlikely event he’d be willing to accept a trade, I can’t see him wanting to come to New England.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
19,595
The Chiefs traded 27, a 3rd rounder, and a first rounder the following year to move up from 27 to 10. It wouldn't take that much to move from 15 to 7.

By the Stuart draft chart, 7 is worth 1500 and 15 is worth 1050. 46 is worth 440. So the Pats trading 15 + 46 for 7 would be even by the Stuart chart.

Edit: the only "problem" with this is it would create a nearly 90 pick gap between picks, as the Pats next pick is at 96. BB absolutely hates that type of situation.
I think there's a good chance they would fill that gap with a trade (like say Gilmore to SF for 43 )
 

SMU_Sox

loves his fluffykins
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
6,830
Dallas
What a fun Saturday afternoon. Got to watch 2 of Wilsons games vs Hou and At Boise State and for Lance we watched 3. His lone game in 2020 and in 2019 we watched 2. I think it was South Dakota and UC Davis. Right now we have a tight small knit film-study group but if anyone here is a real draftnik and wants to join us please shoot me a PM. Also - this is all-22 and not broadcast tape.

If I missed anything important SN, Jim, Russell, please fill in.

I will do Wilson later next week or maybe this weekend. Let's talk about Lance.

Lance is a work in progress. As a runner he has elite traits. He has great footwork and vision. He also has burst and power. At the end of one game we saw freaking LBs and safeties making business decisions not to tackle him. He plows through guys. Like Fields he is a dual-threat.

Lance's biggest issues are mechanics and accuracy. You can tell from his one game in 2020 that he completely redid his upper and lower mechanics. He still had a bit of an arm loop but he got the ball out a lot quicker. Off the field Lance is a film-rat, leader, loves football and sleeps, eats and breathes it. So off the field he has all the mental characteristics the Pats will look for. He is also good at going through his progressions and not locking onto targets. We saw him manipulate 2nd level defenders but not as much. He also isn't at the point where he is comfortable with throwing with anticipation. Right now he is a see-it throw-it kind of guy. Lance also struggled with off-platform throws and throws on the move. He often made the right decision but his ball placement and accuracy was bad. Lance also works in an NFL like offense and was under center quite a bit.

Lance's downfield accuracy though? The guy has a cannon and knows how to use it. His downfield accuracy is sick. NFL ready. So the thing with Lance is he flashes elite traits but his accuracy and mechanics are things that could derail him and his NFL career. I also thought his progressions were fast but not nearly as quick as Wilson's. Lance is has a path to success in the NFL. If you put him in an offense that takes advantage of his running ability and mixes in a lot of play-action and downfield shots he is going to succeed. My pause with Lance is his accuracy and mechanics. He also has room to grow reading the defense. Both him and Wilson missed robber defenders.

So the question for Lance is more of do you feel like you can fix his accuracy issues by fixing his mechanics? In general his lower body mechanics are still messy. His base is too wide. He can throw jump passes. He can throw off his back foot. He throws without the feet being set. I could go on... But he's 20. He only had one game to show where he worked all off-season on changing his delivery. That's commitment and unfortunately the results didn't show up after just 1 game. I think Lance would really benefit from sitting on the bench a year here or at least the first half of the season while he adjusts to level of competition, speed of the game, and continues to hone his craft. If an NFL coaching staff thinks they can fix his accuracy because it's mostly a lower body issue and not an upper body one then he's a clear first round kind of QB. But he has imo more risk to his game than Fields or Wilson... or Lawrence but he's 1.1. so not worth discussing.

I think Lance could run the Pats offense last year. I think he and Cam have some overlap on strengths and weaknesses.
 

SMU_Sox

loves his fluffykins
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
6,830
Dallas
Sounds like a more athletic Mitch Trubisky.

Or Cam Newton.

I'm not sure how to feel.
Yeah me either. He's a tough eval because his success will come with a projection more than other guys that 1) they can fix his mechanics and accuracy and 2) he grows with anticipation-throws (though this is not as big of a requirement). I definitely like Fields and Wilson more out of the chute.
 

SMU_Sox

loves his fluffykins
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
6,830
Dallas
The other thing is he is making full field progressions and operating an NFL style under center offense. So he has the mental side of the game that they’d want and you can also project forward.

Another thing to consider is Lance did all this as a reshoot freshman. That’s impressive.
 
I've been eyeing Lance as a possible Falcons pick - maybe at #4 if they really like him, or perhaps more likely after trading down. I think that would be the ideal sort of situation for him, with a smart QB (who is good at the things he isn't) to learn from for at least one year and maybe even two. Maybe the Falcons fit ultimately isn't there, but I certainly don't think he's the right pick for any franchise that doesn't have a good bridge option in place.
 

steveluck7

Member
SoSH Member
May 10, 2007
3,486
Burrillville, RI
For some reason,Taylor’s name is the one that’s stuck in my head all off season (and towards the end of the regular season).
Not sure why exactly since he’s only a couple of months younger than Cam but he has way less wear and tear.
He profiles like a guy who could run the offense Bill wanted last season better than Cam.
Side note, anecdotal evidence suggests that if you’re franchise is looking for THE guy, rostering Taylor is a good predictor
BAL prior to Jackson
CLE before Baker
BUF before Allen
LAC before Herbert
 

SMU_Sox

loves his fluffykins
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
6,830
Dallas
I wouldn't read much into that honestly. EXOS trains up a ton of people. They are one of the premiere institutions. They tend to have their clientele well prepared for the combine.
 

Beomoose

Member
SoSH Member
May 28, 2006
18,118
Wherabouts Unknown
I wouldn't read much into that honestly. EXOS trains up a ton of people. They are one of the premiere institutions. They tend to have their clientele well prepared for the combine.
Gotcha, didn't know if the implication there
was: teaming up with them to sort out his mechanics.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
6,924
Having a harder time getting excited about a Fitz/Mac Jones combo, but it’d be the same idea (with a very different system). Shouldn’t have to pay much to trade up for Jones, or likely not trade up at all.
Just looking at the mocks I have a feeling that there might be an opportunity to trade down while still getting Jones if that's who they want. Looks like Mac will be the fifth taken and it's been fairly rare for even 4 taken in the first round although 5 did happen in 2018.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
19,595
Just looking at the mocks I have a feeling that there might be an opportunity to trade down while still getting Jones if that's who they want. Looks like Mac will be the fifth taken and it's been fairly rare for even 4 taken in the first round although 5 did happen in 2018.
I honestly don't think there is a team that would take him before 46, but I could be wrong. He has intense "Jake Fromm" vibes, though he came out after his 1 year on a loaded team, where Fromm went back. Still, if I had to bet on a potential 1st rounder who slid to the 3rd it would be Jones.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
28,292
It doesn't seem reasonable for the Pats to plan on taking Jones beyond the first half of the first round. If it happens to work out the day of the draft, that's something else.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
19,595
It doesn't seem reasonable for the Pats to plan on taking Jones beyond the first half of the first round. If it happens to work out the day of the draft, that's something else.
Well yeah, I don't think you plan to take a player in any spot. You just stick a value on him, stick a value on the other players and decide based on that.

I'm hopeful that the Patriots don't have Jones particularly high on their list and wouldn't take him in the 1st, but who knows. I do think he doesn't seem to fit the QBs Bill has looked at lately, he'd be the least mobile QB they drafted since..... Brady maybe?
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
12,414
UWS, NYC
I was thinking Mahomes at 1-10 (two first and a third) and Josh Allen at 1-6 (a first and two seconds) as the corollaries. Of course the the picks aren’t all in the exact same spots, so there’s some triangulation/guesswork in there.
 

Beomoose

Member
SoSH Member
May 28, 2006
18,118
Wherabouts Unknown
Apologies ahead if this is a silly question for our draftniks, but how would you project Lance's floor? Discounting things out of his hands like a complete moron of a coach hanging him out to dry from day 1, or (god forbid) injury trouble, and assuming his apparently high football IQ plus demonstrated leadership make it unlikely he would end up as a "bad attitude/work ethic" bust. If he only ever is as good as he's shown, his mechanics and offense-running never really get more sorted than they were the last time he was on the field, is he a career backup or could he struggle along as a low-to-mid-tier starter?
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,149
Mansfield MA
Apologies ahead if this is a silly question for our draftniks, but how would you project Lance's floor? Discounting things out of his hands like a complete moron of a coach hanging him out to dry from day 1, or (god forbid) injury trouble, and assuming his apparently high football IQ plus demonstrated leadership make it unlikely he would end up as a "bad attitude/work ethic" bust. If he only ever is as good as he's shown, his mechanics and offense-running never really get more sorted than they were the last time he was on the field, is he a career backup or could he struggle along as a low-to-mid-tier starter?
The floor on every QB prospect is useless bust. Maybe not Lawrence.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
43,086
Curious why? Wentz is interesting because he was bad last year but at one point was really good. Mariota was straight garbage for years and at no point was good
2016 wasn't good? You could argue that's too long ago to matter, but it wasn't straight garbage.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
43,086
I‘d consider a Cam/Trask exacta if that were available around 1-10. Ideally you wouldn’t want to start Trask in the first part of Year 1, but the system you build for Cam would be the right shell, and Cam would be a good guy to learn from.
Am I misunderstanding you here? You would draft Trask at 10?
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
19,595
2016 wasn't good? You could argue that's too long ago to matter, but it wasn't straight garbage.
2016 is a long time ago, but okay, I slightly exaggerated. He was bad most of his career, but had one pretty good year 5 seasons ago. I don't get the appeal of trading for a guy who hasn't shown anything in years and the knock on whom is he can't handle processing or a complex offense.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
37,762
A lot of mocks have the Pats taking Trask in the 2nd (a lot also have them taking Jones there -- I find it interesting how many mocks have Jones ending up a Patriot, with some showing him going there at 15 and others at 43).
I do think it's reasonable to have Mac Jones mocked to the Pats. There is clearly a need and he's likely to be available to the Pats. We obviously have absolutely no idea about the Pats' evaluation of Jones but I don't think he's the guy. There will be too much talent available at #15 to take Mac, IMO. Now, if he's there in the late 1st or early 2nd, I could see a trade up from #46.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
12,642
New York City
The floor on every QB prospect is useless bust. Maybe not Lawrence.
Probably even Lawrence--not sure a generational QB prospect has busted but an awful lot of QBs drafted first or second have been busts. (Ryan Leaf was ahead of Peyton in some observer's eyes, Jmarcus Russell and his 70 yard pass from his knees--or was that Kyle Boller? another busto, Akili Smith, Art Schlichter wasn't worth gambling on at 4, Joey Harrington, etc.

[Of course people bust at every position; the Cooper/Warmack double bust at guard in 2013 really stands out to me].
 

Vandalman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
971
SE Mass
Probably even Lawrence--not sure a generational QB prospect has busted but an awful lot of QBs drafted first or second have been busts. (Ryan Leaf was ahead of Peyton in some observer's eyes, Jmarcus Russell and his 70 yard pass from his knees--or was that Kyle Boller? another busto, Akili Smith, Art Schlichter wasn't worth gambling on at 4, Joey Harrington, etc.
This is sneaky good.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Apr 9, 2007
12,025
Washington
I think the hit rate from 2020 will end up being pretty good. Burrow and Herbert looked good. Tua shows promise. Love TBD.