2023 QB Carousel

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,368
New York City
My #1 Draft take is "he's a winner" is the worst way to evaluate college QBs.
The most successful college QBs in terms of wins are almost always guys who don't have NFL skillsets.
Not to be a contrarian but yes and no IMO. You obviously don't want to pick Gino Torretta but at QB the ones who succeed are almost always players who found a lot of success early in college--and that's generally (although it didn't for Patrick Mahomes so much) going to equate to wins. My concern with Levis and Richardson is that despite having a lot of parts of NFL skillsets but they didn't get on the field early and they didn't have a ton of production when they were on the field. Basically if you have the physical and mental skillset of a successful NFL QB it's going to manifest itself in college.

In this respect QB is, I think, different from a lot of other positions--it's easy to find examples at almost every position of physically gifted players who didn't play much in college and were day one starters in the NFL. (Antonio Cromartie comes to mind, Danille Hunter had 1.5 sacks his last year in college, Clay Matthew didn't do much in college -- although his physical improvement attributed to nutrition and taking lifting seriously as a senior and in the NFl was something amazing)
 
Last edited:

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,190
Otherwise it could be tampering from what I read (I don’t know for sure).
Right, it would be tampering since he's under contract.
That tells me that GB is looking to move on or Rodgers wants out.
Either way I don't see him back. Let the Love era begin.
 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
19,164
Henderson, NV
Curious to know why this is the case - if either of these guys even have a 20% chance of being above average, that will do more for your franchise than most other mid to late first round picks
The problem is they are being hyped as top 5 guys. And most mid-to-late first round picks at QB are few and far between

Pickett - Showed improvement through rookie season, but not a good starter yet
Love - Zero opportunity so far
Lamar - Good, but not great
Paxton Lynch - Bust
Manziel - Bust
Bridgewater - Low level starter, good backup

That's in the last 10 years. It gets worse if you go back further. The guys that succeed in the first round are getting drafted at the top. If they aren't good enough, they shouldn't be drafted that high. The opportunity cost to get a really good player instead of a mediocre QB is too high IMO.

And I say that as a Seahawks fan that (1) got lucky with a 3rd round QB becoming a star and (2) would probably be one of the better situations in the NFL for one of those guys to come in now that Geno is signed and sit and learn behind him. The Seahawks really have too many holes to fill to use that pick like that. Either take the best available at 5 or trade down for more draft capital.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
39,986
Not to be a contrarian but yes and no IMO. You obviously don't want to pick Gino Torretta but at QB the ones who succeed are almost always players who found a lot of success early in college--and that's generally (although it didn't for Patrick Mahomes so much) going to equate to wins.
Also didn't apply to Justin Herbert or Josh Allen...
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
31,991
Not to be a contrarian but yes and no IMO. You obviously don't want to pick Gino Torretta but at QB the ones who succeed are almost always players who found a lot of success early in college--and that's generally (although it didn't for Patrick Mahomes so much) going to equate to wins. My concern with Levis and Richardson is that despite having a lot of parts of NFL skillsets but they didn't get on the field early and they didn't have a ton of production when they were on the field.
I think you can say success personally maybe, but winning, especially early?
Who are some of our top QBs in the league:
Mahomes: Very mediocre record
Allen: Very mediocre record
Burrow: okay, he had a lot of success in his 4th and 5th years, but never saw the field his 1st 3.
Hurts?: yep, like all Alabama QBs
Herbert: 3 of the worst seasons in recent Oregon History, then a good 4th year
Lawrence: Definitely true
Lamar: Mediocre, pretty good, Mediocre in his 3 years
Rodgers: Mediocre year 1, very good year 2
Russ: Bad, Bad, Pretty good, very good across 4 years
Stafford: Pretty good to very good all 3 years
Dak- mediocre to good/very good over his 4 years, early being the worst.

I'd say guys who come out of the box in college and have team success then go on to the NFL and are star QBs are more rare than not.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,368
New York City
I think you can say success personally maybe, but winning, especially early?
Who are some of our top QBs in the league:
Mahomes: Very mediocre record
Allen: Very mediocre record
Burrow: okay, he had a lot of success in his 4th and 5th years, but never saw the field his 1st 3.
Hurts?: yep, like all Alabama QBs
Herbert: 3 of the worst seasons in recent Oregon History, then a good 4th year
Lawrence: Definitely true
Lamar: Mediocre, pretty good, Mediocre in his 3 years
Rodgers: Mediocre year 1, very good year 2
Russ: Bad, Bad, Pretty good, very good across 4 years
Stafford: Pretty good to very good all 3 years
Dak- mediocre to good/very good over his 4 years, early being the worst.

I'd say guys who come out of the box in college and have team success then go on to the NFL and are star QBs are more rare than not.
Well I did say "but at QB the ones who succeed are almost always players who found a lot of success early in college--and that's generally (although it didn't for Patrick Mahomes so much) going to equate to wins" Allen and Jackson were carrying shitty teams to 8- and 9- win seasons while putting up some pretty remarkable numbers, and they did it from early one. All these players found personal/offensive success early on in college and I think it's fair to say that all these QBs were (with the possible exception of young Herbert) were leading their teams to good seasons for those programs.
 

scott bankheadcase

I'm adequate!!
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2006
2,714
hoboken
Well I did say "but at QB the ones who succeed are almost always players who found a lot of success early in college--and that's generally (although it didn't for Patrick Mahomes so much) going to equate to wins" Allen and Jackson were carrying shitty teams to 8- and 9- win seasons while putting up some pretty remarkable numbers, and they did it from early one. All these players found personal/offensive success early on in college and I think it's fair to say that all these QBs were (with the possible exception of young Herbert) were leading their teams to good seasons for those programs.
He's in a different bracket in this conversation, but what you're saying also applies to Purdy.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,368
New York City
He's in a different bracket in this conversation, but what you're saying also applies to Purdy.
I guess I'd say with Purdy that I'm not shocked he was better than expected--being a productive four year starter in college at QB, especially when you don't have remarkable physical gifts, suggests to me that you are particularly good at the mental side of the game. And I think that's really my point with the "puppies got paws theory" of QB development; if you have marginal or better NFL talent and the mental make up/processing ability to be a starter in the NFL you're going to play early and play pretty well early unless you happen to be at one of the small handful of programs that consistently has good QBs (Bama, OSU, not sure who else).
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
1,059
Pickett - Showed improvement through rookie season, but not a good starter yet
Love - Zero opportunity so far
Lamar - Good, but not great
Paxton Lynch - Bust
Manziel - Bust
Bridgewater - Low level starter, good backup
I'm not saying that Levis or Richardson would be surefire hits, but if you're a first round team who needs a QB, the possibility that they could become Lamar or even just slightly better than Bridgewater should be enough to take them over other first round possibilities. Like, just because QBs are risky doesn't necessarily mean that the player your picking at another position is going to be a hit - it's possible you go for a safer player at guard and they don't work out, either. So wouldn't you rather roll the dice on the upside at the games more important position? If you're going to lose, at least do so shooting for the highest outcome.

Lamar has been an NFL MVP - I think we can say he's better than "Good." The Ravens would rather have him than another corner or wide receiver.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
31,991
Well I did say "but at QB the ones who succeed are almost always players who found a lot of success early in college--and that's generally (although it didn't for Patrick Mahomes so much) going to equate to wins" Allen and Jackson were carrying shitty teams to 8- and 9- win seasons while putting up some pretty remarkable numbers, and they did it from early one. All these players found personal/offensive success early on in college and I think it's fair to say that all these QBs were (with the possible exception of young Herbert) were leading their teams to good seasons for those programs.
I don't really agree, I especially don't agree on Allen... Wyoming is good compared to everyone in their conference that isn't Boise.... also his stats were TERRIBLE. And a lot of these other teams, they weren't exactly crushing it... and I think the "by their program standards" is both not really accurate, and kind of the point... guys who have success in college wins is usually because they go to loaded powerhouse teams, guys who don't have middling success. Even then it's hard to really judge whether they have elevated the program or they just happened to be there the year they had a slightly better team, or an opponent had a down year.

Anyway, this all came out of my saying that "winning" is a terrible metric for judging a guy's pro potential, and it's very clear that all the evidence backs that up.

Edit- also, you mentioned early success which is even more glaring...a few guys had success early, but most either struggled early, or couldn't beat out the incumbents.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,368
New York City
I don't really agree, I especially don't agree on Allen... Wyoming is good compared to everyone in their conference that isn't Boise.... also his stats were TERRIBLE. And a lot of these other teams, they weren't exactly crushing it... and I think the "by their program standards" is both not really accurate, and kind of the point... guys who have success in college wins is usually because they go to loaded powerhouse teams, guys who don't have middling success. Even then it's hard to really judge whether they have elevated the program or they just happened to be there the year they had a slightly better team, or an opponent had a down year.

Anyway, this all came out of my saying that "winning" is a terrible metric for judging a guy's pro potential, and it's very clear that all the evidence backs that up.

Edit- also, you mentioned early success which is even more glaring...a few guys had success early, but most either struggled early, or couldn't beat out the incumbents.
Josh Allen threw for 3200 yards and 28 tds/15 picks and ran for 500 yards and 7 touchdowns his first year at Wyoming. We're looking at the same guy?
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
31,991
Josh Allen threw for 3200 yards and 28 tds/15 picks and ran for 500 yards and 7 touchdowns his first year at Wyoming. We're looking at the same guy?
2nd year actually... and he completed 56% of his passes. But yeah terrible was an overstatement even given the weak competition He was better than I remembered, I didn't look it up.

None of this really matters to the general point, which is that "winning" is a dumb criteria for judging future QB success rates.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,368
New York City
2nd year actually... and he completed 56% of his passes. But yeah terrible was an overstatement even given the weak competition He was better than I remembered, I didn't look it up.

None of this really matters to the general point, which is that "winning" is a dumb criteria for judging future QB success rates.
First full year, he broke his collar bone in the second game of his first year there. (He also had absurd stats in junior college, but whatever).

QB wins are pretty overrated but I think high level college production is common with the QBs and I'd be worried about taking a guy like Levis who didn't play much until he was 22 and wasn't great then, or Richardson who played only one year and wasn't that good in that one year, regardless of the physical gifts those two have.
 

heavyde050

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2006
10,598
San Francisco
I guess I'd say with Purdy that I'm not shocked he was better than expected--being a productive four year starter in college at QB, especially when you don't have remarkable physical gifts, suggests to me that you are particularly good at the mental side of the game. And I think that's really my point with the "puppies got paws theory" of QB development; if you have marginal or better NFL talent and the mental make up/processing ability to be a starter in the NFL you're going to play early and play pretty well early unless you happen to be at one of the small handful of programs that consistently has good QBs (Bama, OSU, not sure who else).
This article references an Athletic article that could possibly be more of a driver for college QB success in the NFL versus just the combine performance.
https://www.yahoo.com/now/nfl-rumors-brock-purdy-had-024514983.html

Edit:
Here is the Athletic article
https://theathletic.com/4226466/2023/02/24/nfl-quarterbacks-s2-cognition-test/?source=emp_shared_article&redirected=1&access_token=9664568
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
1,059
QB wins are pretty overrated but I think high level college production is common with the QBs and I'd be worried about taking a guy like Levis who didn't play much until he was 22 and wasn't great then, or Richardson who played only one year and wasn't that good in that one year, regardless of the physical gifts those two have.
It seems like your definition keeps expanding while conveniently leaving out the two guys you don't like in this draft. Joe Burrow couldn't beat out Dwayne Haskins or JT Barrett. Ryan Tannehill was a WR until his junior year. Jalen Hurts was beat out by Tua at Alabama (a worse pro). Matt Ryan was pretty bad at BC - any team drafting a QB right now would take Matt Ryan's career from their pick. Any team.

Those are a random smattering of pretty good NFL QBs, but the point is that it's okay for us to say that it's very difficult to know what makes a good quarterback draft pick. There are so many variables and physical traits are an important part of the picture, as is record, as is the situation they go to in the NFL (Tannehill - bad with miami, good at TN), as is their mental makeup, and so on.

If there were a consistent connection between good draft picks and bad draft picks, this would be easy, but there's just not.
 

Oil Can Dan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2003
7,695
0-3 to 4-3
So today is the day when the Franchise Tag allocations can start. Going to be very interesting to see what Baltimore does with Lamar. As I understand it they can tag him with either the Exclusive or Non-Exclusive cap, and they work like this:

Exclusive - Not official yet but as it stands this carries a 2023 salary of around $45M. This number should drop due to restructuring/resignings of various QBs. Lamar would not be free to speak with other teams without the Ravens permission.
Non-Exclusive - $32.4M for 2023. Lamar would be free to sign with any team that owns its' original 1st round pick in 2023 & 2024. The Ravens would have the right to match that exact offer, or else receive those two 1st round picks (or negotiate different terms, I think).

If it were my call I'd tag him with the non-exclusive version. I don't think any team is giving him a five year fully guaranteed contract at Watson levels, which is what he's reportedly seeking. So any offer he signs for is likely going to be something better for the team than this stalemate he's in. If you go with the exclusive tag then he's in for around $40M this year and you're back here again in 2024, and if you tag him then it'll end up being something like a two year $95M contract. And if I'm wrong and he does get a contract from another team that I'm not comfortable with then I'd take those two 1st and move along. But with him being his own agent and the pool of teams looking for a QB that own their original '23 (and '24) 1sts being relatively small that's a gamble I'd be willing to take.
View: https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/1633196517019340801?s=20
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,368
New York City
It seems like your definition keeps expanding while conveniently leaving out the two guys you don't like in this draft. Joe Burrow couldn't beat out Dwayne Haskins or JT Barrett. Ryan Tannehill was a WR until his junior year. Jalen Hurts was beat out by Tua at Alabama (a worse pro). Matt Ryan was pretty bad at BC - any team drafting a QB right now would take Matt Ryan's career from their pick. Any team.

Those are a random smattering of pretty good NFL QBs, but the point is that it's okay for us to say that it's very difficult to know what makes a good quarterback draft pick. There are so many variables and physical traits are an important part of the picture, as is record, as is the situation they go to in the NFL (Tannehill - bad with miami, good at TN), as is their mental makeup, and so on.

If there were a consistent connection between good draft picks and bad draft picks, this would be easy, but there's just not.
I one hundred percent agree that it's hard--there are a million factors that go into who succeeds and who doesn't. But I really don't think I'm changing my view; I think at QB (unlike many other positions) its truly unusual for a player who didn't find early success in college to succeed in the NFL. There are exceptions--Burrow, arguably Brady, Cassell, Tannehill (who was a decent QB when he started playing QB FWIW) but by and large whatever other factors there are in QBs finding success good productivity, often early, is almost always one of them.
 

IdiotKicker

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
10,192
Somerville, MA
The Lamar situation is fascinating. If you are able to draft a QB who is successful, you have one key advantage - you're paying the most important person in team sports way less than market value. So if you look at this in terms of the non-exclusive tag and having to pay two firsts, you're effectively giving up the potential to draft two impact players and pay them less than the market in order to have the most important person in team sports solidified on your team for the next 5-7 years. So with Lamar, in my opinion, it's basically one question - "Do you think you're getting MVP Lamar or slightly above-average 12 games a year Lamar?" If you think you're getting the former, you back the truck up and surrender your two firsts and call it a day. Anything else and you probably punt, because then you're stuck with an above-average player for part of the season chewing up a ton of cap and you've reduced your ability to build around that player by not having two chances at paying quality starters way less than quality starter money.

So if you're NE, what do you do, given your team construction? You've got a defense with a few quality young pieces (Dugger, defensive Joneses drafted in 2022, Barmore), some solid to outstanding veterans (Judon, Wise, Bentley) and potentially the next 5-7 year rebuild in a good spot on that side of the ball. You have a bunch of #2 WRs without a true game-changer at any position on offense, an underachieving TE corps, and an OL that needs a couple tackles. I think if you can answer the OT question, the rest of the team is strong enough that adding Lamar makes you a title contender if he hits his peak. The odds of hitting that peak are far from certain. But how often do you get to take a team that finished 8-9 with a mess at QB and OC, and add quality players at both of those spots? Lamar is the kind of player that takes an 8-win team to a 12-win team if healthy and playing well, and his ceiling is far higher than Mac's. It's a huge bet on the next 5 years of the franchise and being able to win in the window of this defense growing into its prime.

I'm taking a swing at it. The ability to acquire a potential star QB in his prime at the cost of just two 1sts and a bunch of guaranteed money basically never happens. I don't hate Mac, I think he's got a chance to be a quality starter in the NFL and got a raw deal from NE last year with the setup they gave him, but Lamar is a potential game-changer at the most important position in sports. Pay for the guys who can potentially give you elite production. The downside risk is that you're a 10-11 win team the next couple years with BoB as the OC, which still probably gets you into the playoffs, and then anything can happen from there anyways. So you're really mortgaging the 2025-2027 seasons because of the lost draft picks and dead cap space in the event things go badly. I'll take that shot because if it hits, you're a legit title contender.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
From Oil Can's post:
Lamar would be free to sign with any team that owns its' original 1st round pick in 2023 & 2024. The Ravens would have the right to match that exact offer, or else receive those two 1st round picks (or negotiate different terms, I think).
I wonder how many teams don't own their original 1st round picks for 2023 and 2024, thereby eliminating them from being potential suitors.
A quick look, if I am reading this right, means these teams are not eligible to sign him, based on 2023 picks (I can't figure out if any teams have already lost their 2024 1st round picks):
  • DEN
  • LAR
  • NO
  • CLE
  • MIA
  • SF
Then you can certainly eliminate those teams with sure-fire QBs on their roster now: KC, LAC, BUF, CIN, JAX, PHI, DAL (?).
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
1,059
I one hundred percent agree that it's hard--there are a million factors that go into who succeeds and who doesn't. But I really don't think I'm changing my view; I think at QB (unlike many other positions) its truly unusual for a player who didn't find early success in college to succeed in the NFL. There are exceptions--Burrow, arguably Brady, Cassell, Tannehill (who was a decent QB when he started playing QB FWIW) but by and large whatever other factors there are in QBs finding success good productivity, often early, is almost always one of them.
But this is a nearly useless piece of information because "early college success" isn't at all instructive for who will be good prior to the player's career. I can list a whole bunch of busts who were good in college, had prerequisite physical traits and still sucked. Sam Bradford, Matt Barkley, Matt Leinart, Jameis Winston, Jake Locker, Brian Brohm, Sam Darnold, Josh Rosen, etc. The list goes on and on.

How can this framework be at all consisten? it's like since Cam Newton worked out, his one year at Auburn would be proof that we should've known he'd be a good QB. If he didn't work out, then he didn't start early enough and it should be obvious that he wouldn't be a good QB. The position is changing, offenses are changing - this isn't like 20 years ago where a pocket passer QB had a defined shape and pedigree to him. Furthermore, the sample sizes of these types of players are so small and limited that any trend you find have to be taken with a grain of salt. I see no reason why Anthony Richardson isn't just as likely to be a good starter as he is a bust in the right system with the right talent. He is a one of one physically - bigger and faster than any qb before him, with a cannon arm as well. You simply do not come across players like him very frequently.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
The Lamar situation is fascinating. If you are able to draft a QB who is successful, you have one key advantage - you're paying the most important person in team sports way less than market value. So if you look at this in terms of the non-exclusive tag and having to pay two firsts, you're effectively giving up the potential to draft two impact players and pay them less than the market in order to have the most important person in team sports solidified on your team for the next 5-7 years. So with Lamar, in my opinion, it's basically one question - "Do you think you're getting MVP Lamar or slightly above-average 12 games a year Lamar?" If you think you're getting the former, you back the truck up and surrender your two firsts and call it a day. Anything else and you probably punt, because then you're stuck with an above-average player for part of the season chewing up a ton of cap and you've reduced your ability to build around that player by not having two chances at paying quality starters way less than quality starter money.

So if you're NE, what do you do, given your team construction? You've got a defense with a few quality young pieces (Dugger, defensive Joneses drafted in 2022, Barmore), some solid to outstanding veterans (Judon, Wise, Bentley) and potentially the next 5-7 year rebuild in a good spot on that side of the ball. You have a bunch of #2 WRs without a true game-changer at any position on offense, an underachieving TE corps, and an OL that needs a couple tackles. I think if you can answer the OT question, the rest of the team is strong enough that adding Lamar makes you a title contender if he hits his peak. The odds of hitting that peak are far from certain. But how often do you get to take a team that finished 8-9 with a mess at QB and OC, and add quality players at both of those spots? Lamar is the kind of player that takes an 8-win team to a 12-win team if healthy and playing well, and his ceiling is far higher than Mac's. It's a huge bet on the next 5 years of the franchise and being able to win in the window of this defense growing into its prime.

I'm taking a swing at it. The ability to acquire a potential star QB in his prime at the cost of just two 1sts and a bunch of guaranteed money basically never happens. I don't hate Mac, I think he's got a chance to be a quality starter in the NFL and got a raw deal from NE last year with the setup they gave him, but Lamar is a potential game-changer at the most important position in sports. Pay for the guys who can potentially give you elite production. The downside risk is that you're a 10-11 win team the next couple years with BoB as the OC, which still probably gets you into the playoffs, and then anything can happen from there anyways. So you're really mortgaging the 2025-2027 seasons because of the lost draft picks and dead cap space in the event things go badly. I'll take that shot because if it hits, you're a legit title contender.
I don't take that swing if I am NEP or any other team, because I think his likely outcome is the Lamar we saw the last couple years.

One thing we have yet to see is the shelf-life for this new generation of dual-threat QBs.

My gut tells me that if you can't depend on the longevity of a RB, you have to weight the injury risk to a running QB pretty highly. As they say on "Shark Tank," "for those reasons, I'm out."
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
11,665
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
I don't take that swing if I am NEP or any other team, because I think his likely outcome is the Lamar we saw the last couple years.

One thing we have yet to see is the shelf-life for this new generation of dual-threat QBs.

My gut tells me that if you can't depend on the longevity of a RB, you have to weight the injury risk to a running QB pretty highly. As they say on "Shark Tank," "for those reasons, I'm out."
Last couple of years Lamar is a great player considering what he had around him. The only concern to me are his injuries, if you could guarantee me right now Lamar will play at his 2021-2022 level for five years without missing time, I'm sending the Ravens two first rounders and paying him 200+ million in a blink.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
31,991
I don't take that swing if I am NEP or any other team, because I think his likely outcome is the Lamar we saw the last couple years.

One thing we have yet to see is the shelf-life for this new generation of dual-threat QBs.

My gut tells me that if you can't depend on the longevity of a RB, you have to weight the injury risk to a running QB pretty highly. As they say on "Shark Tank," "for those reasons, I'm out."
I probably wouldn't do it, but part of the case for would be that he was pretty good as a passer last year in a terrible talent/coordinator offense. He's shown real improvement. Volume was low but TD%, INT%, even ANY/A were solid. He's been developing to a level where a good team could reduce his rushing workload and still succeed.
 

IdiotKicker

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
10,192
Somerville, MA
I don't take that swing if I am NEP or any other team, because I think his likely outcome is the Lamar we saw the last couple years.

One thing we have yet to see is the shelf-life for this new generation of dual-threat QBs.

My gut tells me that if you can't depend on the longevity of a RB, you have to weight the injury risk to a running QB pretty highly. As they say on "Shark Tank," "for those reasons, I'm out."
I don't disagree with you in terms of the most likely outcome. I think there's a 30% chance that he is what he's been the last two years, a 40% chance that he gets better in the right situation but doesn't approach his MVP season, a 20% chance he gets back to that top level, and a 10% chance he continues to worsen because of injuries and age. I think where I land is that without a sizeable upgrade at QB from what we received last year, this team probably isn't winning a title in the next 3-5 years anyways. And while I am hopeful that BoB can unlock a new level from Mac, I also realize there are limitations there and he may not reach his ceiling, just like Lamar may not. So if I'm going to spend the next 3-5 years taking a chance on a QB to reach his ceiling, I think I'd rather take it on Lamar than Mac, especially if the cost is two 1sts and a bunch of money. If there's one thing the Pats have in spades for the next several years, its cap space, and I'll throw it at a guy like Lamar for the chance to see if he can reach his peak again.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
39,986
I one hundred percent agree that it's hard--there are a million factors that go into who succeeds and who doesn't. But I really don't think I'm changing my view; I think at QB (unlike many other positions) its truly unusual for a player who didn't find early success in college to succeed in the NFL. There are exceptions--Burrow, arguably Brady, Cassell, Tannehill (who was a decent QB when he started playing QB FWIW) but by and large whatever other factors there are in QBs finding success good productivity, often early, is almost always one of them.
There are even bigger exceptions though, like 3 of the best QB's in today's NFL, Allen, Mahomes and Herbert. 3,200 yards over the course of 14 games is not good. 28td's/15ints is not good. 8-6 when you're playing, and losing to teams like New Mexico and San Diego State down the stretch (and then BYU in the bowl game) is not good. That was Allen's first (and only full season at Wyoming). His 2nd and final year, he only played 11 games, still only completed 56% of his passes for only 1,800 yards. When he came out, he originally was not close to projected as the #7 pick. It was through visits/combine, etc. after the season that he started shooting up boards. Most folks had never heard of him and there were plenty of debates about him vs. Josh Rosen (who, IMO had a better freshman year at UCLA than Allen did in his first season as a starter at Wyoming).

Mahomes obviously put up huge numbers in Kingsbury's offense at Texas Tech, but his freshman year wasn't great, and his last 2 seasons, the team went 12-13.

Herbert's first 3 seasons at Oregon, as previously discussed were anything but great, or winning.

I think the one thing all of these guys have in common to a degree is monster arms and mobility. That's what Richardson has too. Whether or not it translates to success on the field, I have no idea, but if I'm a team inside the top 10 that needs a QB now or in the near future, I'm rolling the dice on him (probably not over Stroud or Young) because it's a lottery ticket that can change your franchise. Tua, Mac, Fields, Watson, Mayfield and on and on had better on field success than any of the three guys I mentioned and none of them hold a candle on the field to Mahomes/Allen/Herbert.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
11,334
Well I did say "but at QB the ones who succeed are almost always players who found a lot of success early in college--and that's generally (although it didn't for Patrick Mahomes so much) going to equate to wins" Allen and Jackson were carrying shitty teams to 8- and 9- win seasons while putting up some pretty remarkable numbers, and they did it from early one. All these players found personal/offensive success early on in college and I think it's fair to say that all these QBs were (with the possible exception of young Herbert) were leading their teams to good seasons for those programs.
Wyoming has been pretty consistent under Coach Craig Bohl since Allen's 1st full season in 2016 (excluding Covid year):

2016 - 8-6 (Allen)
2017 - 8-5 (Allen)
2018 - 6-6 (post-Allen)
2019 - 8-5
2021 - 7-6
2022 - 7-6
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,368
New York City
There are even bigger exceptions though, like 3 of the best QB's in today's NFL, Allen, Mahomes and Herbert. 3,200 yards over the course of 14 games is not good. 28td's/15ints is not good. 8-6 when you're playing, and losing to teams like New Mexico and San Diego State down the stretch (and then BYU in the bowl game) is not good. That was Allen's first (and only full season at Wyoming). His 2nd and final year, he only played 11 games, still only completed 56% of his passes for only 1,800 yards. When he came out, he originally was not close to projected as the #7 pick. It was through visits/combine, etc. after the season that he started shooting up boards. Most folks had never heard of him and there were plenty of debates about him vs. Josh Rosen (who, IMO had a better freshman year at UCLA than Allen did in his first season as a starter at Wyoming).

Mahomes obviously put up huge numbers in Kingsbury's offense at Texas Tech, but his freshman year wasn't great, and his last 2 seasons, the team went 12-13.

Herbert's first 3 seasons at Oregon, as previously discussed were anything but great, or winning.

I think the one thing all of these guys have in common to a degree is monster arms and mobility. That's what Richardson has too. Whether or not it translates to success on the field, I have no idea, but if I'm a team inside the top 10 that needs a QB now or in the near future, I'm rolling the dice on him (probably not over Stroud or Young) because it's a lottery ticket that can change your franchise. Tua, Mac, Fields, Watson, Mayfield and on and on had better on field success than any of the three guys I mentioned and none of them hold a candle on the field to Mahomes/Allen/Herbert.
This is going in circles so I'll stop but i'd say that Mahomes (played some as a freshman, monster record breaking production on so-so teams as a sophomore and junior), Herbert (four year starter with strong individual performance on a traditional football powerhouse even though the team wasn't good at first), and Allen (monster at juco for one year, injured early in year two, what I think is a very strong performance as a junior, and then a strong performance when not injured in year four) are all examples of players who played and performed well early on in college. Perhaps I overstated who well the teams did--I had recalled Oregon as being a little bit stronger than they were for example, probably focussing on when they went 12-2--but I think all three are in a different universe from Levis or Richardson whose lack of performance even their last years in college would be a big red flag for me.

EDIT: Wyoming was also 4-8 and 2-10 the two years before Allen's first full season when they went 8-6. It's a lower level of competition than the SEC surely and Allen didn't win the Heisman but hearing Allen wasn't good at wyoming is the most surprising football take i've heard since Bo Callhan doesn't have any friends.
 

Reggie's Racquet

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2009
7,041
Florida/Montana
There are even bigger exceptions though, like 3 of the best QB's in today's NFL, Allen, Mahomes and Herbert. 3,200 yards over the course of 14 games is not good. 28td's/15ints is not good. 8-6 when you're playing, and losing to teams like New Mexico and San Diego State down the stretch (and then BYU in the bowl game) is not good. That was Allen's first (and only full season at Wyoming). His 2nd and final year, he only played 11 games, still only completed 56% of his passes for only 1,800 yards. When he came out, he originally was not close to projected as the #7 pick. It was through visits/combine, etc. after the season that he started shooting up boards. Most folks had never heard of him and there were plenty of debates about him vs. Josh Rosen (who, IMO had a better freshman year at UCLA than Allen did in his first season as a starter at Wyoming).

Mahomes obviously put up huge numbers in Kingsbury's offense at Texas Tech, but his freshman year wasn't great, and his last 2 seasons, the team went 12-13.

Herbert's first 3 seasons at Oregon, as previously discussed were anything but great, or winning.

I think the one thing all of these guys have in common to a degree is monster arms and mobility. That's what Richardson has too. Whether or not it translates to success on the field, I have no idea, but if I'm a team inside the top 10 that needs a QB now or in the near future, I'm rolling the dice on him (probably not over Stroud or Young) because it's a lottery ticket that can change your franchise. Tua, Mac, Fields, Watson, Mayfield and on and on had better on field success than any of the three guys I mentioned and none of them hold a candle on the field to Mahomes/Allen/Herbert.
Instead of two firsts for Lamar and a bunch of money how about two firsts for a shot to move up for Richardson, Stroud or Young?
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
39,986
Instead of two firsts for Lamar and a bunch of money how about two firsts for a shot to move up for Richardson, Stroud or Young?
Me personally, I say no. I'm not ready to start that process over again at QB. I think Mac can be a top 10 QB if you give him some tools and some coaching and offensive line that can actually block. I don't think a young QB could have had a worse situation around them than what Mac had last year, so I'm not ready to throw in the towel, and I don't think any of those guys are can't miss prospects that you mortgage your future on to trade up and get one of them.

I'd rather give Mac the season, and if he it doesn't work, then you make your move in next year's draft, which IMO, is way stronger at the top than this years QB class. That said, if Hendon Hooker drops out of the 1st round, and there's a chance to get him, I might take a flyer there. I wouldn't spend a first on him.
 

Dogman

Yukon Cornelius
Dope
Mar 19, 2004
14,705
Missoula, MT
The glaring difference is Lamar has produced in a big, big way whereas each of Richardson, Stroud, and Young may never produce.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
11,665
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
Me personally, I say no. I'm not ready to start that process over again at QB. I think Mac can be a top 10 QB if you give him some tools and some coaching and offensive line that can actually block. I don't think a young QB could have had a worse situation around them than what Mac had last year, so I'm not ready to throw in the towel, and I don't think any of those guys are can't miss prospects that you mortgage your future on to trade up and get one of them.

I'd rather give Mac the season, and if he it doesn't work, then you make your move in next year's draft, which IMO, is way stronger at the top than this years QB class. That said, if Hendon Hooker drops out of the 1st round, and there's a chance to get him, I might take a flyer there. I wouldn't spend a first on him.
Justin Fields is currently in a much worse situation and so was Trevor Lawrence as a rookie. I think Mac's predicament in 2022 has become vastly overstated. Yeah, the offensive coaching and play calling were awful, but rookie first round QBs deal with situations as bad or worse all the time.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
39,986
EDIT: Wyoming was also 4-8 and 2-10 the two years before Allen's first full season when they went 8-6. It's a lower level of competition than the SEC surely and Allen didn't win the Heisman but hearing Allen wasn't good at wyoming is the most surprising football take i've heard since Bo Callhan doesn't have any friends.
I'm not sure why it's surprising, because it's true. In 2016 (his only full season at Wyoming), his passer rating against FBS teams was 35th in the country, behind 8 other underclassmen and 2 other sophomores from his own conference. In the one game he had against a power 5 team that year, he threw 5 picks against Nebraska. He was 84th in the nation in completion % against FBS teams.

Was he terrible at Wyoming, no, but he certainly wasn't some can't miss, finished product who put up some insane numbers. The dude averaged 228 yards passing in 2016 and like 170pyg in 2017. Scouts did a fantastic job of finding him and seeing his tools as undeniable, and Buffalo ended up benefiting, but no, he wasn't great. And he had an NFL running back next to him on that Wyoming team in Brian Hill, and old friend Jacob Hollister at tight end. Certainly not great, but in that conference, with his skills, he could have and probably should have lit it up a bit more (although he did deal with turnover in the coaching staff, etc. if I'm not mistaken).
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
11,334
EDIT: Wyoming was also 4-8 and 2-10 the two years before Allen's first full season when they went 8-6. It's a lower level of competition than the SEC surely and Allen didn't win the Heisman but hearing Allen wasn't good at wyoming is the most surprising football take i've heard since Bo Callhan doesn't have any friends.
Wyoming quarterback Josh Allen has spent months as a top prospect. Allen’s is a weird case, though. He was only an FBS starter for two years, and he didn’t put up great numbers in either. Allen’s career line at Wyoming: a 56.2 completion rate, 7.8 yards per attempt, 44 touchdowns, 21 interceptions, and a mediocre 137.7 rating.
In Passing S&P+, Bill Connelly’s advanced stat that adjusts for opponent strength, Wyoming’s 2017 passing game ranked 119th, second-worst in the MWC. Mayfield’s Oklahoma finished first, Darnold’s USC 11th, Jackson’s Louisville 12th, Rudolph’s OSU 15th, and Rosen’s UCLA 27th.
https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2018/4/2/16913670/josh-allen-wyoming-nfl-draft-college-schedule-strength-opponents

I mean, this isn't new. Most people were at least somewhat scared about his lack of college production against poor competition.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,368
New York City
The glaring difference is Lamar has produced in a big, big way whereas each of Richardson, Stroud, and Young may never produce.
Agreed. We all have our preferences among Richardson/Stroud/Young but it's quite plausible that all of them end up being AKili Smith/Tim Couch/Zach Wilson level busts.
I'm not sure why it's surprising, because it's true. In 2016 (his only full season at Wyoming), his passer rating against FBS teams was 35th in the country, behind 8 other underclassmen and 2 other sophomores from his own conference. In the one game he had against a power 5 team that year, he threw 5 picks against Nebraska. He was 84th in the nation in completion % against FBS teams.

Was he terrible at Wyoming, no, but he certainly wasn't some can't miss, finished product who put up some insane numbers. The dude averaged 228 yards passing in 2016 and like 170pyg in 2017. Scouts did a fantastic job of finding him and seeing his tools as undeniable, and Buffalo ended up benefiting, but no, he wasn't great. And he had an NFL running back next to him on that Wyoming team in Brian Hill, and old friend Jacob Hollister at tight end. Certainly not great, but in that conference, with his skills, he could have and probably should have lit it up a bit more (although he did deal with turnover in the coaching staff, etc. if I'm not mistaken).
Also true that Bo Callhan didn't have any friends you know. Anyhow Allen was definitely a prospect whose tools exceed his college production, no doubt about it, and if you want to see the perfect role model for a Levis or especially Richardson, Allen is it.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
22,168
https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2018/4/2/16913670/josh-allen-wyoming-nfl-draft-college-schedule-strength-opponents

I mean, this isn't new. Most people were at least somewhat scared about his lack of college production against poor competition.
And, it should be noted, he was NOT good his rookie year.

In 2016, Buffalo was 9-7 and made the playoffs. Now they weren't great, but still...9-7 and made the playoffs. They then ditched Tyrod Taylor and picked up Josh Allen. And in Allen's rookie year - a year after the team made the playoffs - they went 6-10, and Allen put up this line:

169-320 (52.8%), 2,074 yds, 6.5 y/a, 10 td, 12 int, 67.9 rating, 631 rush yds (7.1 y/a)

So it was clear right away that he could run, had a huge arm, and could make plays, but was WILDLY inconsistent and made some real boneheaded plays, and was very inaccurate. But you could see tools. It was unclear after his rookie year if he was going to be the guy to turn the corner or if he would just end up being another one of those great college athletes that couldn't make it in the NFL as a QB.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
58,919
New York City
Justin Fields is currently in a much worse situation and so was Trevor Lawrence as a rookie. I think Mac's predicament in 2022 has become vastly overstated. Yeah, the offensive coaching and play calling were awful, but rookie first round QBs deal with situations as bad or worse all the time.
To be fair, the Pats were fighting for a playoff spot this year.

Fields this season resulted in the Bears getting the first pick. Lawrence the season before resulted in the Jags getting the first pick. Their teams were terrible.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
39,986
Justin Fields is currently in a much worse situation and so was Trevor Lawrence as a rookie. I think Mac's predicament in 2022 has become vastly overstated. Yeah, the offensive coaching and play calling were awful, but rookie first round QBs deal with situations as bad or worse all the time.
Ok, and Trevor Lawrence went 3-14 as a rookie and 9-8 this year, and Justin Fields is now 5-20 as a starter through 2 seasons. Meanwhile, Mac went 9-7 and 6-8.

Trevor Lawrence rookie year: 3,600 yards, 12tds, 17ints, 71.9 rating
Justin Fields rookie year: 2,200 yards, 7tds, 10ints, 73.2 rating
Mac Jones rookie year: 3,800 yards, 22rd, 13ints, 92.5 rating

In Lawrence's case, they got rid of the Urban Mayer/Bevell shitshow and brought in QB guru, Doug Pederson, put some players around Lawrence, and he won the same number of games as Mac did in his rookie season, and his numbers improved to the point that they were slightly better than Mac's rookie season (4,100 yards, 25td, 8ints, 95.2 rating)

In Fields case, they changed their coaching staff, brought in almost no help at the skill positions, and well, results didn't get much better.

In Mac's case, their entire coaching staff, including Josh McD left, and BB replaced them with.....Matt Patricia, and the offensive line was a disaster and his receivers sucked, and his tight ends were worse. And Mac still put up better numbers than either of them did in their rookie years.

Why am I getting rid of Mac right now?
 

Reggie's Racquet

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2009
7,041
Florida/Montana
Why am I getting rid of Mac right now?
Not to rehash the Mac thread again but the reason I'm getting rid of Mac is that he is not the answer now or in the future. He is not mobile enough in this NFL to make up for issues with the OL and WR corps. He's basically a pocket passer and it is very difficult to win, especially in the playoffs, without a quarterback that is reasonably mobile.

Yes I know it happened with Brady but he is the outlier and even in the past five years the league has changed dramatically. We all saw what happened to Brady this past year when his O-line and WR corps diminished. In today's NFL you have to have a quarterback that is at least a threat to run on third and long when the pocket collapses or the wide receivers are covered. Mac will never be that guy. IMO.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
31,991
Ok, and Trevor Lawrence went 3-14 as a rookie and 9-8 this year, and Justin Fields is now 5-20 as a starter through 2 seasons. Meanwhile, Mac went 9-7 and 6-8.

Trevor Lawrence rookie year: 3,600 yards, 12tds, 17ints, 71.9 rating
Justin Fields rookie year: 2,200 yards, 7tds, 10ints, 73.2 rating
Mac Jones rookie year: 3,800 yards, 22rd, 13ints, 92.5 rating

In Lawrence's case, they got rid of the Urban Mayer/Bevell shitshow and brought in QB guru, Doug Pederson, put some players around Lawrence, and he won the same number of games as Mac did in his rookie season, and his numbers improved to the point that they were slightly better than Mac's rookie season (4,100 yards, 25td, 8ints, 95.2 rating)

In Fields case, they changed their coaching staff, brought in almost no help at the skill positions, and well, results didn't get much better.

In Mac's case, their entire coaching staff, including Josh McD left, and BB replaced them with.....Matt Patricia, and the offensive line was a disaster and his receivers sucked, and his tight ends were worse. And Mac still put up better numbers than either of them did in their rookie years.

Why am I getting rid of Mac right now?
You probably aren't, but.........
Mac was in an ideal situation as a rookie, and he was... good? But he also showed some of the same limitations you worried about pre-draft, and the whole case for him was that he was going to be NFL ready. Also late year good defenses really worked him in the exact same ways, many of which exposed potential limitations.

Year 2, the situation was worse, but also he showed no real progress on his limitations, and all the things that were concerning late season were apparent, his physical limitations became more glaring when he faced pressure, and he didn't show an ability to compensate in any way. He failed to show much more than a late round rookie with a bad arm in the same offense.

Now, this year you're likely going in to see what can this guy do in a decent offense with limitiations.

However.... the argument for moving on is that there is some reason to think he'll never be able to surpass his mediocre tools, and you're signing up for a ride on the Mayfield/Bradford/Jimmy G merry-go-round of mediocrity, where you can manage when you have a really good line and good options, but if the line gets anywhere in the below average range you're toast. Guys who get what they're given, give them a really good support, they're good, give them weak support they're bad. Teams like that are on a treadmill.

If you see a QB you like who has better tools... the kind of tools that overcome weaknesses in other areas, and elevate good teams to elite... you make that move every time. Now you have to really believe that you can turn those tools into production, but if your staff does... well an elite QB is worth more than anything, and by a lot.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
31,991
lol, bunch of teams in desperate need of a QB leaking immediately that they won't pursue Lamar Jackson. Doing Biscotti a solid in his quest to avoid guaranteed money (he's the guy who publicly railed against the Watson contract... not because he was a scumbag, but because his money was guaranteed), owners really don't want to open that door after years of trampling over the weakest and dumbest union in sports.
 

steveluck7

Member
SoSH Member
May 10, 2007
3,887
Burrillville, RI
Not to mention Jackson representing himself is probably going to hurt him, even if it’s just from the PR / rumor mill standpoint.
I know this situation isnt a true free agency scenario but I can’t imagine Jackson has the media contacts to play the “mystery team” card.
 

Reggie's Racquet

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2009
7,041
Florida/Montana
Cellar Door said above...
"If you see a QB you like who has better tools... the kind of tools that overcome weaknesses in other areas, and elevate good teams to elite... you make that move every time. Now you have to really believe that you can turn those tools into production, but if your staff does... well an elite QB is worth more than anything, and by a lot."

Absolutely agree
 

Dogman

Yukon Cornelius
Dope
Mar 19, 2004
14,705
Missoula, MT
Not to rehash the Mac thread again but the reason I'm getting rid of Mac is that he is not the answer now or in the future. He is not mobile enough in this NFL to make up for issues with the OL and WR corps. He's basically a pocket passer and it is very difficult to win, especially in the playoffs, without a quarterback that is reasonably mobile.

Yes I know it happened with Brady but he is the outlier and even in the past five years the league has changed dramatically. We all saw what happened to Brady this past year when his O-line and WR corps diminished. In today's NFL you have to have a quarterback that is at least a threat to run on third and long when the pocket collapses or the wide receivers are covered. Mac will never be that guy. IMO.
Certainly an argument that can be made. I'm not sure it is a good one though.

2022 Mahomes
2021Stafford
2020 Brady
2019 Mahomes
2018 Brady
2017 Foles
2016 Brady
2015 P. Manning
2014 Brady
2013 Wilson
2012 Flacco
2011 E. Manning
2010 Rodgers
2009 Brees
2008 Roth
2007 E. Manning
2006 P. Manning
2005 Roth
2004 Brady
2003 Brady
2002 Johnson
2001 Brady

Of the list, only 2 can be considered reasonably mobile but both Wilson and Mahomes are pocket passers first. Both have or had great skill players and/or an all world D. In the last 5 years, as you qualified, Mahomes has certainly extended plays moving around but he is a pocket passer first and foremost with otherworldly skill players. Mobile QBs simply get hurt more especially with suspect OL and WR corps.

This NFL is a skill player league that make plays (WR, TE, RB) after their skilled QB gets them the ball. Those that are threats to run on 3rd and long (Jackson, Hurts, Allen, Newton) simply haven't won anything.

Mac may not be the guy for sure but I don't agree that it has anything to do with mobility.
 

Average Game James

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2016
4,061
A lot of NFL Twitter is banging this same drum. I just don't see it. Any QB needy team has certainly already had internal discussions about Jackson and if they would be willing to give up two first rounders and a record setting fully guaranteed contract to sign him. News hits, well connected reported reaches out to team sources, quickly hears a few "not interested." Just doesn't seem that absurd to me.

It looks even less weird when you consider the circumstances of the reported teams:
-Raiders, Falcons, Panthers are all picking in the top 10 of the draft and are in the mix for the top 4 QBs. For a rebuilding team, a rookie QB on a smaller contract alone is arguably more appealing than Jackson and that's before you add in the extra cost in draft capital
-Miami doesn't have its 2023 first round pick - it CAN'T go after Jackson until after the draft
-Washington could be headed for a sale process - this probably makes it harder to make a quarter billion dollar guarantee
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Florio is usually good, but this is crazy. No one is interested in parting with two first-round picks for the privilege of guaranteeing $230M to a player whose best days appear to be behind him. And no one is interested in putting their entire off-season plan on ice while they attempt to negotiate a deal with Jackson for less money than he has demanded, then wait to see if the Ravens decide to match that lesser offer.

I mean, the Giants just threw a ridiculous amount of money at Daniel Jones because they knew he’d get even more if he hit the open market. Does that happen in a collusive environment? Collusion happens, but the Jackson case simply looks like a player who misread the market.