Your logic is ... logical. Trade 2-4 for a boat load of the 5-6 3-cone drill warriors Bill loves so
Pats QB Options
- Thread starter Mugsy's Jock
- Start date
- Status
The 2021 CFB season isn’t going to be a covid restricted season. And I’m sure someone from the top 20 CFB QB lists will exceed expectations, but how will that help what should be a playoff team? New England won’t be drafting top ten, will need to expend even more draft capital in ‘22 to reach that guy, and at a time when they’ll need draft capital to keep adding support.
I’m expecting the QB of the future to be someone unexciting like Mond or Newman simply because Mac Jones looks like he might be gone by 15 and he doesn’t look like a first round talent to me. I expect that New England stocks up at the other positions and hopes that they can find a cromulent QB without having to trade up to get them.
I think they have to strike now (go after a QB in the draft) if the right one is reasonably available. But other teams know this (two of them in their own division sitting ahead of them) and they might not be able to get to where they need to go reasonably. There are many other reasons to strike now including...Cam could quickly flameout...and they have invested in a free agency core for approximately the next 3 years. They essentially waste a year of that window if Cam flames out or gets injured and there isn't a reliable backup in place to step in.
I think we agree on everything although--and this might just be projection--I think they might be tempted by Mills. Personally I'd love to see BB as a mad scientist running a contrarian running heavy system and take a guy like Mond or Newman, even with with the ND guy or someone like that as a third string QB, and just start building towards the reinvention of the wing-t.
Newman is definitely an interesting possibility in a Lamar Jackson kind of way. He has a nuclear arm, they would really need to help him take a little off his throws. And what if Pitts is the guy that floats with five QBs going top 14? New England could bust out the 4 TE Red Zone Killfense with a running QB and a tailback. Good luck on opposing defenses trying to stop that.
I know there are lots of examples of how QB's outside the top-5 picks rarely succeed, but I think it's telling when you reverse the analysis and look at the best QB's over the last 20 years:
- Brady (199th pick)
- Brees (32nd)
- Roethlisberger (11th)
- Rodgers (24th)
- Wilson (75h)
- Mahomes (10th)
- Prescott (135th)
- Jackson (32nd)
Hey, where is Bledsoe on that list? He was still a NE QB 20 years ago!
Joking aside, there are some spectacular failures as well. Leaf, Miter, etc.
Joking aside, there are some spectacular failures as well. Leaf, Miter, etc.
Meanwhile, in Mr Peabody's Wayback Machine, we can revisit the draft of 1979, when Joe Montana was drafted with the 82nd and final pick on the third round.
He was only the fourth QB taken behind Jack Thompson, Phil Simms and Steve Fuller.
According to Pro Football Reference, only 3 of the 330 players chosen in the 12 rounds made the HoF ... Dan Hampton (4th overall), Kellen Winslow (13th) and Montana
He was only the fourth QB taken behind Jack Thompson, Phil Simms and Steve Fuller.
According to Pro Football Reference, only 3 of the 330 players chosen in the 12 rounds made the HoF ... Dan Hampton (4th overall), Kellen Winslow (13th) and Montana
Mond is a San Antonio local. I've watch him since he was in HS. He's improved every year he was at Texas A&M but I have doubts he's our QB of the future.
I think the situation you are drafted into plays more of a role in success than draft position (obviously). If you look at the QBs listed above, they were all drafted in good to great situations. How many QBs drafted into poor situations went onto have HoF careers?
So while a top 5 pick may not go onto become great, I think it's fairly safe to assume any QB the Patriots select in the top 5 will become a useful NFL QB just given their superior situation.
So while a top 5 pick may not go onto become great, I think it's fairly safe to assume any QB the Patriots select in the top 5 will become a useful NFL QB just given their superior situation.
I agree 100%, and posted a similar sentiment somewhere over the last few days.
As of now I'm expecting the top 4 QBs to be gone by 5 (the Watson situation means that Miami is now building around Tua and should select the best talent they can at 3). I don't think Jones is worth trading up for, and he might very well vanish before 15 (I think if the big four are gone that the Niners take Jones and cut ties with Jimmy G after next year). That leaves New England with some very unexciting options. But they're going for one of them.
This article has me dreaming...
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-draft-2021-what-it-would-cost-patriots-to-move-up-from-no-15-overall-to-select-future-qb/
Look at the projected trade for Cincy's #5 pick:
The Bengals are set at the quarterback spot after selecting Joe Burrow with the No. 1 overall pick last year and are now looking to build around him going forward. While they could elect to draft Oregon tackle Penei Sewell to further put a wall around Burrow or -- as CBS Sports NFL Draft expert Ryan Wilson recently mocked -- give him an explosive weapon in receiver Jaylen Waddle, Cincy could move down to gain more assets to further build its foundation.
Similar to the Falcons deal, moving into the top five would be a heavy price tag for the Patriots. When crunching the numbers against Hill's trade chart, it'd likely require New England to give up its first- and second-round pick to get the conversation off the ground. Those assets get the Patriots to 443 points, which is in spitting distance of the No. 5 pick, which values at 468 points. However, this could be another avenue where adding a player could help the Patriots' chances.
Projected trade: New England trades No. 15 overall, No. 96 overall (354 total points), and receiver N'Keal Harry to Cincinnati for No. 5 overall."
I mean.....WHERE DO I SIGN UP FOR THIS?????
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-draft-2021-what-it-would-cost-patriots-to-move-up-from-no-15-overall-to-select-future-qb/
Look at the projected trade for Cincy's #5 pick:
The Bengals are set at the quarterback spot after selecting Joe Burrow with the No. 1 overall pick last year and are now looking to build around him going forward. While they could elect to draft Oregon tackle Penei Sewell to further put a wall around Burrow or -- as CBS Sports NFL Draft expert Ryan Wilson recently mocked -- give him an explosive weapon in receiver Jaylen Waddle, Cincy could move down to gain more assets to further build its foundation.
Similar to the Falcons deal, moving into the top five would be a heavy price tag for the Patriots. When crunching the numbers against Hill's trade chart, it'd likely require New England to give up its first- and second-round pick to get the conversation off the ground. Those assets get the Patriots to 443 points, which is in spitting distance of the No. 5 pick, which values at 468 points. However, this could be another avenue where adding a player could help the Patriots' chances.
Projected trade: New England trades No. 15 overall, No. 96 overall (354 total points), and receiver N'Keal Harry to Cincinnati for No. 5 overall."
I mean.....WHERE DO I SIGN UP FOR THIS?????
What about the Jets?
I kid.
wouldn’t our 1st round pick this year net at least a first and a second next year? That’s more capital to trade up next year.
Between the two classes it’s probably closer to 50/50 than 70/30.
and if you expand the experiment a bit: what are the chances that it will be a QB picked in 2021 in the top 5, or even top 12 (to get to the Pat’s pick)
25%? Less?
The Fungible QB!
That doesn’t seem quite right. If it was, wouldn’t Brisset, Kassel, Hoyer, etc all had better careers? They were all barely useful, if that, as starters. Jimmy G seems alright, even quite good...his injuries aren’t really relevant to this particular point. But man, a lot of busts.
Edit: I mean, I see what you’re saying. A great prospect drafted into a shitshow will find it hard to succeed, maybe ever. But, if you’re not that great, the great system isn’t necessarily going to polish you into a gem.
Last edited:
Given that Cassel was a 7th rounder who didn’t play at all in college and Hoyer was a UFA, and the fact that Brissett has started a not insignificant amount of games, I think it proves the opposite actually. The Pats have had not particularly talented guys that had moderate success as starting NFL QBs. That’s all system.
Yeah my point wasn't really about any run of the mill QB turning from shit to gold. The point is, you have a greater chance of success if you're in a good situation, regardless of your pedigree.
This is beyond stupid for the Bengals. Sewell could be sitting there for him at 5 and give him up to draft WR in a draft filled with wideouts?
Waddle isn't going to get Burrow from being pounded again. Give him a stud blocker.
Those numbers cited above don't match what I'm seeing when I look up either the old Cowboys trade value chart or the newer, Belichick-influenced one.
It seems to me the Pats would have to give up their entire draft to move up to #5.
It seems to me the Pats would have to give up their entire draft to move up to #5.
It’s not even remotely realistic. The cost of moving up from 15 to 5 is not a 3rd and a bust WR.
The new (Stuart/Hill) trade value charts don't indicate what it would actually cost to make a trade - they just try to model the actual value of each pick historically.
There's zero chance this costs less than two 1s to get up to 5, it's just a matter of what else they'd have to kick in.
When the Chiefs traded for Mahomes they gave up 27, 71 & a 1st from the next year for 10.
When the Texans traded up for Watson they traded 25 & a 1st the next year for 12.
When the Saints traded up to take Davenport the next year they traded 27, 147 & a 1st the next year for 14.
This is a bigger relative move than all those.
There's zero chance this costs less than two 1s to get up to 5, it's just a matter of what else they'd have to kick in.
When the Chiefs traded for Mahomes they gave up 27, 71 & a 1st from the next year for 10.
When the Texans traded up for Watson they traded 25 & a 1st the next year for 12.
When the Saints traded up to take Davenport the next year they traded 27, 147 & a 1st the next year for 14.
This is a bigger relative move than all those.
It is also worth noting that there is likely to be competition for any move into the top 5-6. Carolina and possibly Denver seem like prime candidates, and they have fewer spots to move.
I’m frankly skeptical that Cincy or Atlanta move down at all because they’ll likely have shots at talents like Sewell, Surtain or Pitts that don’t pop up every draft.
I’m frankly skeptical that Cincy or Atlanta move down at all because they’ll likely have shots at talents like Sewell, Surtain or Pitts that don’t pop up every draft.
This is good context, thanks for posting. To me it actually shows the price isn’t as bad as I thought. Those moves were moving up 17, 13, and 13 picks. The Pats would only have to move up 10 picks. Yes 15 to 5 is a greater move than 25 to 12 in terms of value, but 15 itself is a much greater value than the starting points of 27, 25, and 27.
Based on those trades a think 15 + 2022 first + one other minor piece could be enough. By minor I basically mean not 46, JCJ, or Gilmore. Maybe 96, maybe a lesser player.
Are we thinking that the old trade charts are bunk?
For example...the charts say that they could move to 5 with the 15, the 46, and a 2022 2nd rounder. But it seems that you all are saying that this is bunk?
EDIT- Based on the posts above it seems you ARE saying the old charts are bunk
For example...the charts say that they could move to 5 with the 15, the 46, and a 2022 2nd rounder. But it seems that you all are saying that this is bunk?
EDIT- Based on the posts above it seems you ARE saying the old charts are bunk
Last edited:
Really good data, thanks for posting it.
I agree with your assessment that the cost is less than I would've thought. I also think you're right that this conversation starts with 15 and the '22 1st, and needs another piece or two. Bill loves his second rounders, so more likely to include multiple 3rds or 4ths, or players.
The trade charts usually get thrown out the window when it comes to trading for a QB. You have to look at comparable trade hauls for context.
Also there’s going to be a crunch within the top 10 to select a QB. I would say it’s probable QBs go 1-2-3 with Miami trading down. So then it becomes a gamble on will Atlanta pass on a QB? Will Philly pass on a QB? Will someone else leap frog the Pats at 15 to get QB4?
FWIW, Mel Kiper has QBs going 1-2-3-4 in his latest mock. He has Mac Jones falling to NE at 15, which may or may not happen depending on how bad someone wants a QB.
It might be true that no team is willing to trade down for a "fair" price (because they have a guy they don't want to miss out on), in which case all discussion of what's a fair price is moot.
Kiper now has Carolina moving up for Fields and NE grabbing Jones at #15:
View: https://youtu.be/AE79acCXMrU
I'd definitely take that. Get a future starting QB and do not give up any other assets.
View: https://youtu.be/AE79acCXMrU
I'd definitely take that. Get a future starting QB and do not give up any other assets.
The Athletic’s latest mock has a similar situation play out with Denver trading up instead of Carolina to 3, and QBs going 1-2-3-4. They have Mac Jones falling all the way to 30 though and NE passing on him.
I think this is starting to get at the crux of the issue: of the teams in the top 10 who presumably don't need/want to pick a QB, which ones are likely to trade down to a team who wants a QB?
- Jax -- definitely taking a QB and 99.5% sure that will be Lawrence.
- NYJ -- 99% sure they will take a QB, and probably Wilson. But it's the Jets so who knows?
- MIA -- The first big question mark. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised by any of the three options (take a QB, trade down, or sit tight and pick BPA). So I'll say 33% for each of the three options.
- ATL -- I can't believe they will take a QB, having just extended Ryan and so many holes to fill. The first obvious trade partner.
- CIN -- No way they take a QB. Sewell is a perfect fit. I doubt they trade down, but I could see the argument that they should. Best case, they move down a handful of slots and Sewell is still sitting there. Worst case, they miss out on Sewell and end up with another excellent player. If I were CIN, I would look to trade down, but stay in the top 10.
- PHI -- Another big question mark. I would say 25% chance they go QB; 75% they go BPA. I doubt they trade down, and no more than a couple spots.
- DET -- Another non-QB pick. Possible trade target.
- CAR -- The first trade UP competition. They could use a QB. They don't have far to move to get to 3 or 4 or even 7.
- DEN -- More trade UP competition. They also could use a QB and don't have far to move to get to 3 or 4 or even 7. I wonder if DET might end up trying to pit CAR and DEN against each other for 7, especially if 3 or 4 of the big 5 are gone in the first 6 picks.
- DAL -- Another non-QB pick.
- NYG -- Another non-QB pick.
- SF -- Probably another non-QB pick as it currently stands.
- LAC -- Another non-QB pick.
- MIN -- Another non-QB pick.
Using the Rich Hill trade value chart:
NE trades 15 + 96 + 139 (value = 315+39+17=371) to DAL for 10 (tv=369)
Then trades 10 + 46 (tv = 369+128=497) to ATL for 4 (tv=491).
It's the same cost to NE as trading 15 + 46 + 96 + 139 directly to ATL, but I wonder if ATL might be happier with the former option (10+46).
The Pats should trade their 2nd and some lower round picks with the Saints to get their first rounder at 28. Then trade the 28th pick along with a 3rd rounder in a trade with the Falcons.
Last edited:
Define lower round picks. 46 + 96 doesn't even get them to 28 per the Hill value chart. 28 = 209, 46 = 128, 96 = 39, 120 = 25. That adds up to 192 and wouldn't even be enough per the value chart.
Edit 139 is worth 17, that would make it even. 46 + 96 + 120 + 139 for 28 is a lot to give up, but beyond that, it creates a huge gap in the draft from 28 all the way to 122, then another huge gap to 177. And if you give up 15 + 28 + another pick (probably 122) for the 5th pick, then you go all the way from the 5th pick to 177 without a pick. There is no - zero - chance BB would do something like that.
My point is it would take 46 + 96 + 120 + 139 to get the 28th pick. That would leave the Pats without their 3rd rounder. See my edit.
Maybe it's just a hunch, but I'm pretty confident picks 3-7 arent taking a QB. I think the market is there to trade up if BB wants to.
The issue is that those teams likely weren't bidding against other teams who were seriously motivated to move up to those spots. I posted those previous trades to show the bare minimum on a trade up here.
The cost of any particular trade up is:
1) At the threshold that a team is willing to accept to trade out of the spot; AND
2) The highest bid over that threshold.
So even if the Bengals were technically willing to trade 5 for 15, 2022 1st + minor piece, if the Panthers were willing to trade 8 & a 2022 1st, we're not getting the trade up.
I think the actual cost would be closer to 15, 2022nd 1st, a 2nd, a 3rd & a couple young players like JC/Wino.
I think the Goff/Wentz/RG3 trade ups are going to be informative to look at as well in terms of the massive overpaying compared to charts, even though they were for higher picks. Especially Goff/Wentz because I believe the big 4 QBs are all a fair amount higher rated than those 2:
Goff - The Titans traded 1, 113 & 177 for 15, 43, 45, 76 & the Rams' 1st & 3rd the next year.
I kinda think that's the bare minimum it would cost the Pats (2 1sts, 2 2nds, 2 3rds, maybe get back a 4th & 6th).
Wentz - The Browns traded 2 & a 5th the next year (which converted to a comp 4th if the Browns got one) for 8, 77, 100, next year's 1st & a 2nd the year after that.
RGIII - The Rams traded 2 for 6, 39, the Redskins 1st the next year, & their 2nd the year after.
Oh well. Maybe a 2022 pick could be used to compensate. Or we find another year to make that trade with Atlanta.
Hate linking this guy, and no idea of the Pats like Jones, but I love this
View: https://twitter.com/mortreport/status/1374352733742981121
View: https://twitter.com/mortreport/status/1374352733742981121
Imagine if you actually get a talented QB (Like Brady obv was but no one knew at the time). Talent combined with "System of Development" (which they seem to do decently) might net you a top 10 QB.
or if only they let Mallett play.
or if only they let Mallett play.
So, as someone who does not know them well enough is it worth trading up to get Fields if Jones will be there at 15?
Or, how much better is Fields supposed to be?
Or, how much better is Fields supposed to be?
Athletically he's substantially better. I don't know if he will be a better NFL quarterback though. I've been a Mac Jones fan all year, even when he was projected to be a 3rd round pick. I see in him traits that I think will make him a successful QB, especially given the right situation. He's a quick decision-maker (from what I can tell), he has a solid arm, he's highly accurate, and he "throws guys open". Yes he has elite weapons at Alabama, but he also played against the best competition in the country and absolutely SHREDDED it. He hits players in stride so they maximize YAC, and he seems to move well enough in the pocket to avoid the rush. Like any young QB he will struggle when the pressure is in his face, and he won't run for many yards. And after I say all this, it might turn out that he's not good at an NFL level. It's hard to know for sure, but I'd happily take him. But...I wouldn't trade my draft to move up for him.
I’m not an expert but when I watch Fields, I think of Deshaun Watson in terms of his aggressiveness pushing the ball downfield but without the interceptions/accuracy issues in college that caused Watson to slide down draft boards.
Fields is probably the most accurate QB in the class. I also think the knocks on him (slower processing, holds on to the ball too long, etc.) are overstated. For example, he absolutely gets through his reads - according to PFF, only Wilson grades higher among QBs throwing past their first reads. People also seem to forget that Fields really only played one full season as a QB + the 8 COVID affected games this year. He’s not a finished product. Everyone’s favorite #2 pick Zach Wilson has started 8 more games than Fields has.
Mac Jones is really good. But his upside isn’t close to Fields. His performance also isn’t really comparable to Burrows last season.
View: https://mobile.twitter.com/PFF_Mike/status/1345092582414626817
Yeah, Mac Jones put up insane numbers because he played on BY FAR the most talented offense (skill and line) in CFB. If he had played at NDSU like Lance we'd be discussing whether he goes in the 3rd or later. He has some real skills, but he's only in the 1st conversation because he played at a big name school with ridiculous talent.
It's lazy and not fair to compare every Mac Jones type to Matt Leinart...but that's my greatest fear with him. That he's a solid backup QB who doesn't have the physical talent to be an elite starter and really benefitted from having absurd athletes all over the field. Like, I could see Mac Jones drawing an NFL check for a decade...I just don't know how many of those years will be as a starter.
Mac Jones does nothing for me, and I’m not taking a QB at 15 out of a general fear that I’ll never get another chance. That’s not true, and I don’t think Jones is promising enough to warrant that kind of investment. I meant what’s his realistic upper percentile projection even if he succeeds? Andy Dalton? That’s a successful player, of course, but not exciting when his outcome could easily be backup/low level starter rather than mid-level starter when in his prime.
I’m all for taking a shot at a QB, but not him at that pick.
I’m all for taking a shot at a QB, but not him at that pick.
I'd be fine with Jones at 15. But the problem I see is....the Pats already went through one year of what felt like their top QB options falling through. I dont know that they are going to want to sit and hope QB 5 of 5 falls to them. That feels like a dangerous game considering how universally thin next year's crop seems to be, and how important it also seems to be that they get on a rookie QB contract cycle based on this year's spending
Um yikes. But how much does this matter for a QB?
View: https://twitter.com/MathBomb/status/1374403325936889867
View: https://twitter.com/MathBomb/status/1374403325936889867
- Status