Pats QB Options

Status
Not open for further replies.

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
20,861
The deep-draft talk is pretty far over my head, but in seeing the various trade-up scenarios, is there any consideration of two trades -- trading out of 15 to say 10, then trading 10 to move up further as they get a better handle on who is doing what? Or am I missing something obvious that makes that a non-starter?
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
38,941
The deep-draft talk is pretty far over my head, but in seeing the various trade-up scenarios, is there any consideration of two trades -- trading out of 15 to say 10, then trading 10 to move up further as they get a better handle on who is doing what? Or am I missing something obvious that makes that a non-starter?
That's certainly possible but harder to execute in real-time at the draft. My guess is that the Pats would just move up once to 4, 7, or 8 if they see a QB they like sliding. They probably have a pretty good sense of cost for each of these moves. SF and ATL really will set the direction of this draft.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
21,734
I would trade a lot to move up for Fields... but I also think he's going top 3. I just fundamentally don't buy that the SF tradeup was for Mac Jones.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
38,941
I would trade a lot to move up for Fields... but I also think he's going top 3. I just fundamentally don't buy that the SF tradeup was for Mac Jones.
My hunch is similar to yours and they have Fields/Lance in mind but I'm also not completely ruling out a Shanahan curveball. I just hope someone, not NE, views Mac as a top 10 pick.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
21,734
To me the best possible scenario for the Patriots for the top of the draft is... the expected top 2, Jones at 3, DEN trades to 4 and takes Lance.... that lets you move up into the 7-10 range for Fields. I think it's unlikely though... I think Fields is the best QB we could possibly get, so if he doesn't go top 3, you probably have to bite the bullet and move to 4.
 

Silverdude2167

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2006
3,268
Amstredam
I would trade a lot to move up for Fields... but I also think he's going top 3. I just fundamentally don't buy that the SF tradeup was for Mac Jones.
I both agree with you but don't understand why there is so much smoke around Jones. SF has no competition for the remaining QB's, why misdirect?

Also, I feel like Shannan and BB have a good enough relationship that BB knows who SF wants even if they are misdirecting. (Of course who knows)
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
49,305
deep inside Guido territory
If you're trading way up to draft a player, your evaluation better be right in that he's going to be a major difference maker right away. Are any of these QB's being described as that? This is why I'd be very nervous trading up from 15 into the top 5 for any of these QBs outside of Lawrence. QB's in the last few years have been wildly overvalued at the top of the draft as teams have been desperate to fix their situation and reach on players that don't deserve to be drafted as high as they have. If Fields or Lance are sitting there at 8 or below, then you start to think about it. This team has too many long-term holes to give up as many picks as it will take to go up high.
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
13,559
Richmond, VA
If you're trading way up to draft a player, your evaluation better be right in that he's going to be a major difference maker right away. Are any of these QB's being described as that? This is why I'd be very nervous trading up from 15 into the top 5 for any of these QBs outside of Lawrence. QB's in the last few years have been wildly overvalued at the top of the draft as teams have been desperate to fix their situation and reach on players that don't deserve to be drafted as high as they have. If Fields or Lance are sitting there at 8 or below, then you start to think about it. This team has too many long-term holes to give up as many picks as it will take to go up high.
Doesn't have to be an impact player "right away"...but definitely in the long run. Trading up to draft a QB who will sit behind Cam for part/most/all of a season wouldn't be terrible, if that QB could then produce next year or even year 3, if Cam somehow shines for a while.
Getting a QB for 5 years is still a good idea, even if that QB doesn't start all five of those years.

(edited because of premature post)
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
21,734
If you're trading way up to draft a player, your evaluation better be right in that he's going to be a major difference maker right away. Are any of these QB's being described as that? This is why I'd be very nervous trading up from 15 into the top 5 for any of these QBs outside of Lawrence. QB's in the last few years have been wildly overvalued at the top of the draft as teams have been desperate to fix their situation and reach on players that don't deserve to be drafted as high as they have. If Fields or Lance are sitting there at 8 or below, then you start to think about it. This team has too many long-term holes to give up as many picks as it will take to go up high.
I disagree with this entirely. A franchise QB is worth a lot of picks... and I mean A LOT. People massively overvalue the impact losing a couple early round picks will have on the long-term prospects of a team that is set at QB. It's marginal compared with the value of a franchise QB. You can wait a year easily, pick valuing isn't that important. If you think a guy has a good chance to be a franchise type QB you trade up for him, the idea that a pick or two difference or getting a guy at 8 vs. 4 is good strategy is silly to me. If Fields for example is a guy you think is a franchise QB... you go to 4 and get him. One only needs to look at the last 5 years of picks to see that we would trade a handful of those Rd 1-3 picks for a top QB in a heartbeat.
The issue some teams have had isn't that they traded too much to draft a QB... it's that they missed on their QB evaluation/development.

Even then... top QBs are almost impossible to find outside the top 10 picks, as we've seen, you can fill a lot of positions well with mid and late round (or even undrafted) players, and reasonable FA signings.


Edit- for example let's say the speculated price of 15, 96, 2022 1st, 2022 3rd to get to 4..... so 2 1sts and 2 3rds.....
Would you trade a random selection of 2 of these players (Harry, Wynn, Michel, Malcom Brown) and 2 of these (Thuney, Brissett, Valentine, Garcia, Rivers, Winovich, Harris, Cajuste, Keene, Asiasi, Jennings) for Justin Herbert? Of course you would... in a heartbeat.. I could list the 2nd rounders, but the answer would be the same. If you have confidence a guy is a franchise type QB in the making (even if like Mahomes he's going to sit a whole year) you don't worry too much about future depth of draft picks.
 
Last edited:

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
6,037
New York City
If you're trading way up to draft a player, your evaluation better be right in that he's going to be a major difference maker right away. Are any of these QB's being described as that? This is why I'd be very nervous trading up from 15 into the top 5 for any of these QBs outside of Lawrence. QB's in the last few years have been wildly overvalued at the top of the draft as teams have been desperate to fix their situation and reach on players that don't deserve to be drafted as high as they have. If Fields or Lance are sitting there at 8 or below, then you start to think about it. This team has too many long-term holes to give up as many picks as it will take to go up high.
One of the hardest things to do in the NFL is find a true franchise QB - someone you are comfortable leading the team for the next decade+. So, you're absolutely right that it would be a major risk but unless you just totally luck out like the Pats did with Brady (and given advances in scouting, analytics, and metrics since then I'm not sure the Brady scenario would ever be repeatable), you are going to need to take a gamble somewhere - either at the top of the draft, in free agency, or with a major trade along the lines of the discussed Watson trades before the sexual assault stuff came out.

Whether the Pats think this draft is the right time to take that gamble, of course, depends on a myriad of factors that have been discussed in this thread.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
49,305
deep inside Guido territory
I disagree with this entirely. A franchise QB is worth a lot of picks... and I mean A LOT. People massively overvalue the impact losing a couple early round picks will have on the long-term prospects of a team that is set at QB. It's marginal compared with the value of a franchise QB. You can wait a year easily, pick valuing isn't that important. If you think a guy has a good chance to be a franchise type QB you trade up for him, the idea that a pick or two difference or getting a guy at 8 vs. 4 is good strategy is silly to me. If Fields for example is a guy you think is a franchise QB... you go to 4 and get him. One only needs to look at the last 5 years of picks to see that we would trade a handful of those Rd 1-3 picks for a top QB in a heartbeat.
The issue some teams have had isn't that they traded too much to draft a QB... it's that they missed on their QB evaluation/development.

Even then... top QBs are almost impossible to find outside the top 10 picks, as we've seen, you can fill a lot of positions well with mid and late round (or even undrafted) players, and reasonable FA signings.
How many franchise QB's in the last 10 years have been picked in the top 5-top 10 and how many QB's have been busts? I listed all QBs picked in top 10 either traded up for or not.

2011--Cam Newton, Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert--1 hit, 2 busts
2012--Andrew Luck, RG3, Ryan Tannehill--1 hit, 1 bust, 1 took a long time to be good
2013--none in the top 10
2014--Blake Bortles--bust
2015--Jameis Winston, Marcus Mariota--both busts
2016--Jared Goff, Carson Wentz--I'll give them 2 hits as they've been pretty good in stretches but their original teams traded them.
2017--Mitch Tribusky, Patrick Mahomes--1 home run, 1 bust
2018--Baker Mayfield, Sam Darnold, Josh Allen, Josh Rosen--2 hits, 2 busts
2019--Kyler Murray--so far a hit
2020--Joe Burrow, Tua, Herbert--too early to tell long-term on all of them but Herbert has the lead in the clubhouse as being a franchise guy

Hits--8
Busts--9
Average--1(Tannehill)
Too Early to Tell--3

I'd say that Andrew Luck and Patrick Mahomes as the two guys picked in the top 10 in the past 10 years that are true franchise cornerstone QB's. Josh Allen and Kyler Murray are on that track, but I'd need to see more out of them. As you mentioned, teams' evaluations of QB's in recent history have been spotty at best. A lot of the guys available this year you'd have to really rely on the projection of the player on all but really Lawrence. Is that worth gambling multiple future 1st round picks to go up to 4 or 5? I like Fields and Lance, but not at the expense of 2 or 3 first round picks.
 
Last edited:

thurin68

lurker
Jul 19, 2005
55
Not having followed the college game very closely does the speculation about a weak QB class for the 2022 draft have any merit? If so it would seem to make an attempted move up this year a no brainer?
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
38,941
Not having followed the college game very closely does the speculation about a weak QB class for the 2022 draft have any merit? If so it would seem to make an attempted move up this year a no brainer?
Not really. It's simply too far out. We know there isn't a generational talent like Lawrence but who here was following Trey Lance this time last year? Guys like Sam Howell (UNC), Desmond Ridder (Cincy), Kedon Slovis (USC), Spencer Rattler (OU), etc. could all be viewed similarly, or better, this time next year as a Fields/Lance/Jones.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
723
I think there's a big difference between when teams reach for a QB because it's a weak QB draft year, or when teams make inexcusably foolish selections because they're bad at their jobs, & this year when there are 4 guys who I would expect to be top 15ish QBs in the league within 3 years.

The fact is, tons of non-QBs bust, too, for a variety of reasons - that's why BB's longtime strategy of having MORE DARTS has been so effective. This is just a special situation where the Patriots may actually have the shot to acquire their 2035 QB & not just have it be pure 1 in a million luck like with Brady.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
723
Not really. It's simply too far out. We know there isn't a generational talent like Lawrence but who here was following Trey Lance this time last year? Guys like Sam Howell (UNC), Desmond Ridder (Cincy), Kedon Slovis (USC), Spencer Rattler (OU), etc. could all be viewed similarly, or better, this time next year as a Fields/Lance/Jones.
Yeah, the issue isn't so much that next year's class is going to be awful, but it almost assuredly won't be nearly this good, & hopefully the Patriots will be picking much later, so even if the class greatly exceeds expectations, there's no clearer path for the Patriots to take advantage of that next year.
 

dirtynine

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 17, 2002
6,087
Philly
Why not trade up to 4 now, then:
• take Fields if available
if he's not, you can choose between
a. take Lance
b. take Pitts (assuming Jones is a non-starter here), or
c. trade back down in real time (either to take Jones later, or to punt on a QB)

You're starting the season with Cam at QB no matter what (I'd assume). In scenarios b) or c), you're committing to a full season with him in exchange for something worthwhile (a generational TE, or some real draft capital next year/beyond). It's not like the price to get to 4 will be cheaper on draft day. (will it?) You could still get Mond or that Stanford QB later in the draft either way.

ed. forgot Lance
 
Last edited:

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
13,559
Richmond, VA
I think there's a big difference between when teams reach for a QB because it's a weak QB draft year, or when teams make inexcusably foolish selections because they're bad at their jobs, & this year when there are 4 guys who I would expect to be top 15ish QBs in the league within 3 years.

The fact is, tons of non-QBs bust, too, for a variety of reasons - that's why BB's longtime strategy of having MORE DARTS has been so effective. This is just a special situation where the Patriots may actually have the shot to acquire their 2035 QB & not just have it be pure 1 in a million luck like with Brady.
But looking at RedOctober's post, you really wouldn't expect the 4 QB's to be top 15 prospects. You'd hope that 2 of them were hits, and you'd expect that 2 of them would be busts or meh.

The question isn't "is it smart for a team to trade up for a top 15 QB?" Of course that's smart.

The question is "is it smart for a team to trade up for what is maybe a 50/50 shot at a long-term good QB?"

(and I still think that BB is trying rewrite that equation even further: is it possible for a team to be constructed where "top 15 QB" play makes or breaks a team? But of course, I'm armchairing)
 

Joe Sixpack

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2002
5,363
Canton, MA
But looking at RedOctober's post, you really wouldn't expect the 4 QB's to be top 15 prospects. You'd hope that 2 of them were hits, and you'd expect that 2 of them would be busts or meh.

The question isn't "is it smart for a team to trade up for a top 15 QB?" Of course that's smart.

The question is "is it smart for a team to trade up for what is maybe a 50/50 shot at a long-term good QB?"

(and I still think that BB is trying rewrite that equation even further: is it possible for a team to be constructed where "top 15 QB" play makes or breaks a team? But of course, I'm armchairing)
There is also the fact that if you're the team trading up, you almost certainly think more highly of your team's evaluation of these prospects compared to the NFL average. So in the case of the Patriots, they'd have to feel their odds are much better than 50% at picking the correct prospect.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
21,734
How many franchise QB's in the last 10 years have been picked in the top 5-top 10 and how many QB's have been busts? I listed all QBs picked in top 10 either traded up for or not.

2011--Cam Newton, Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert--1 hit, 2 busts
2012--Andrew Luck, RG3, Ryan Tannehill--1 hit, 1 bust, 1 took a long time to be good
2013--none in the top 10
2014--Blake Bortles--bust
2015--Jameis Winston, Marcus Mariota--both busts
2016--Jared Goff, Carson Wentz--I'll give them 2 hits as they've been pretty good in stretches but their original teams traded them.
2017--Mitch Tribusky, Patrick Mahomes--1 home run, 1 bust
2018--Baker Mayfield, Sam Darnold, Josh Allen, Josh Rosen--2 hits, 2 busts
2019--Kyler Murray--so far a hit
2020--Joe Burrow, Tua, Herbert--too early to tell long-term on all of them but Herbert has the lead in the clubhouse as being a franchise guy

Hits--8
Busts--9
Average--1(Tannehill)
Too Early to Tell--3

I'd say that Andrew Luck and Patrick Mahomes as the two guys picked in the top 10 in the past 10 years that are true franchise cornerstone QB's. Josh Allen and Kyler Murray are on that track, but I'd need to see more out of them. As you mentioned, teams' evaluations of QB's in recent history have been spotty at best. A lot of the guys available this year you'd have to really rely on the projection of the player on all but really Lawrence. Is that worth gambling multiple future 1st round picks to go up to 4 or 5? I like Fields and Lance, but not at the expense of 2 or 3 first round picks.
Sure, but... if you can't trust your evaluators you're screwed either way. The thing about QB is... you have to take shots when you can, because you can't really build a long-term contender without a good QB at a good price.

Also, I will say... there are levels of prospects. Most evaluators have this year's top 4 much higher than they did guys like Bortles, Mariota, Trubisky, Tannehill, Locker, etc. You can't just look at every draft and say.. because this B- prospect went top 10 and busted that's a comp to taking an A- prospect top 10.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
723
But looking at RedOctober's post, you really wouldn't expect the 4 QB's to be top 15 prospects. You'd hope that 2 of them were hits, and you'd expect that 2 of them would be busts or meh.

The question isn't "is it smart for a team to trade up for a top 15 QB?" Of course that's smart.

The question is "is it smart for a team to trade up for what is maybe a 50/50 shot at a long-term good QB?"

(and I still think that BB is trying rewrite that equation even further: is it possible for a team to be constructed where "top 15 QB" play makes or breaks a team? But of course, I'm armchairing)
Yes...my point is that RedOctober's post doesn't factor in anything else about those QBs other than where they were taken in the draft.

This is the best incoming draft class of QBs over that time imo, so I do not assign any of these guys with the same bust probability of non-prospects like Locker & Gabbert.
 

thurin68

lurker
Jul 19, 2005
55
Probably showing my age/ignorance here but is there any comp between this 2021 QB draft class and say the 1983 class when Marino/Elway/Kelly/Eason were taken?
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
723
How many franchise QB's in the last 10 years have been picked in the top 5-top 10 and how many QB's have been busts? I listed all QBs picked in top 10 either traded up for or not.

2011--Cam Newton, Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert--1 hit, 2 busts
2012--Andrew Luck, RG3, Ryan Tannehill--1 hit, 1 bust, 1 took a long time to be good
2013--none in the top 10
2014--Blake Bortles--bust
2015--Jameis Winston, Marcus Mariota--both busts
2016--Jared Goff, Carson Wentz--I'll give them 2 hits as they've been pretty good in stretches but their original teams traded them.
2017--Mitch Tribusky, Patrick Mahomes--1 home run, 1 bust
2018--Baker Mayfield, Sam Darnold, Josh Allen, Josh Rosen--2 hits, 2 busts
2019--Kyler Murray--so far a hit
2020--Joe Burrow, Tua, Herbert--too early to tell long-term on all of them but Herbert has the lead in the clubhouse as being a franchise guy

Hits--8
Busts--9
Average--1(Tannehill)
Too Early to Tell--3

I'd say that Andrew Luck and Patrick Mahomes as the two guys picked in the top 10 in the past 10 years that are true franchise cornerstone QB's. Josh Allen and Kyler Murray are on that track, but I'd need to see more out of them. As you mentioned, teams' evaluations of QB's in recent history have been spotty at best. A lot of the guys available this year you'd have to really rely on the projection of the player on all but really Lawrence. Is that worth gambling multiple future 1st round picks to go up to 4 or 5? I like Fields and Lance, but not at the expense of 2 or 3 first round picks.
I think in this entire list the only guy who busted I'd rate as a comparable prospect to any of the top 4 this year was Sam Darnold - & he still has a chance to not bust now that he's free from Gase.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
723
Probably showing my age/ignorance here but is there any comp between this 2021 QB draft class and say the 1983 class when Marino/Elway/Kelly/Eason were taken?
Hmm...

Lawrence = Fabio Elway
Fields = faster Marino
Lance = faster Kelly
Wilson = faster Ken O'Brien
Jones = Todd Blackledge
Mills = Tony Eason
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
19,308
Philadelphia
Also, I will say... there are levels of prospects. Most evaluators have this year's top 4 much higher than they did guys like Bortles, Mariota, Trubisky, Tannehill, Locker, etc. You can't just look at every draft and say.. because this B- prospect went top 10 and busted that's a comp to taking an A- prospect top 10.
I wonder about the evidence for this. I don't think anybody's retrospective opinion about how good somebody was as a prospect in 2014 is really worth very much. There is just too strong a tendency to (consciously or not) update one's beliefs about the prospect based on what they did in the league. The only way to really answer this question is to see the contemporaneous grades for these other guys and compare those grades to the current grades on this year's quarterbacks. But I don't know where one would find that information.

My suspicion is that this kind of evidence would show that some of these guys indeed were ranked significantly lower (ie, Trubisky, Locker) but that others like Winston and Mariota were just as highly viewed as the non-Lawrence QBs in this year's draft.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
723
Jameis threw EIGHTEEN INTERCEPTIONS in 13 games in his final season at FSU & ran a 4.97 40 so he wasn't exactly some dual threat.

The big 4 this year threw a combined 14 in their previous seasons (15 if you count Lance's 2020 & not his 2019).
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
723
I'd actually rate Trubisky as a better prospect than either Jameis or Mariota.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
13,180
New York City
I wonder about the evidence for this. I don't think anybody's retrospective opinion about how good somebody was as a prospect in 2014 is really worth very much. There is just too strong a tendency to (consciously or not) update one's beliefs about the prospect based on what they did in the league. The only way to really answer this question is to see the contemporaneous grades for these other guys and compare those grades to the current grades on this year's quarterbacks. But I don't know where one would find that information.

My suspicion is that this kind of evidence would show that some of these guys indeed were ranked significantly lower (ie, Trubisky, Locker) but that others like Winston and Mariota were just as highly viewed as the non-Lawrence QBs in this year's draft.
Someone like Mcshay does give prospects points out of a hundred so anyone who has an ESPN password could make the comparison. His ratings are a pretty good "consensus" view.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
19,308
Philadelphia
Jameis threw EIGHTEEN INTERCEPTIONS in 13 games in his final season at FSU & ran a 4.97 40 so he wasn't exactly some dual threat.

The big 4 this year threw a combined 14 in their previous seasons (15 if you count Lance's 2020 & not his 2019).
He also had one of the greatest freshman years of all time. From what I recall, the difference between his freshman and sophomore years was front and center in everybody's analysis but he was still rated very highly by just about every draftnik at the time. I may be wrong on this but I would be surprised to see evidence that he was rated lower in April 2015 by draft experts than guys like Fields, Lance, and Jones are rated today.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
49,305
deep inside Guido territory
I think in this entire list the only guy who busted I'd rate as a comparable prospect to any of the top 4 this year was Sam Darnold - & he still has a chance to not bust now that he's free from Gase.
The point of my list is that there are QBs(along with every position) most every year who are taken way higher than they should be. We will look back on this draft and see 1-2 of them that worked out and 1-2 that are either mediocre or busts. Mac Jones is a kid who was talked about as being a fringe 1st round pick for most of the season, then got some buzz as a Patriots target at 15, then only after Shanahan traded up to 3 that there was talk of Jones going anywhere near the top 10.

Winston/Mariota generated just as much buzz pre-draft as Wilson/Fields/Lance. Same with Mayfield/Darnold/Allen and to a lesser extent Rosen and also Kyler Murray in 2019. Even back in 2012, it was viewed that Luck and RG3 were can't miss guys.

This is just me, but if I were running a team I'd pause and seriously think about whether one of these guys are going to be good enough to basically punt on a couple drafts to go get in the top 5. I am not questioning their talent nor do I think all of them are going to bust. If one of these guys fell to a point where I could move up and not give up multiple 1st round picks I would really consider it. I just don't feel like any of the guys available after Lawrence are can't miss and would be willing to put all my cards on the table for them.
 

brendan f

lurker
Jan 13, 2019
27
I would trade a lot to move up for Fields... but I also think he's going top 3. I just fundamentally don't buy that the SF tradeup was for Mac Jones.
I think it was--at least initially, but wouldn't be surprised if they have had internal discussions about a change of heart. As Mel Kiper and others have pointed out, it would be seemingly silly to trade up to that spot if you didn't have someone in mind, and there was so much out there about it being Jones it's hard to imagine that was all noise. That being said, they've received a lot of flak about Jones and they are in an advantageous position to do an about-face if they so choose.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,524
Not having followed the college game very closely does the speculation about a weak QB class for the 2022 draft have any merit? If so it would seem to make an attempted move up this year a no brainer?
The reason that it’s weak is that the guys at the top of the class are all undersized for NFL QBs. Maybe a bigger guy like Desmond Ridder pops, but that doesn’t really help New England as he’d be 1/1 and the Patriots still looking at the best of the 6’1” and under QBs as their QB of the future.

What’s unique about this QB class is that it has four legit first round talents with the physical profile. And this year New England just happens to have a pick high enough to make a trade up into the top ten feasible. New England is going to make the playoffs next year and be drafting 20 or lower, so they would be left hoping that one of the 6’1” guys had franchise ability and was undervalued enough to slip into the teens. Trading up for Lance or Fields this year is a much safer bet.
 
Last edited:

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
723
He also had one of the greatest freshman years of all time. From what I recall, the difference between his freshman and sophomore years was front and center in everybody's analysis but he was still rated very highly by just about every draftnik at the time. I may be wrong on this but I would be surprised to see evidence that he was rated lower in April 2015 by draft experts than guys like Fields, Lance, and Jones are rated today.
He also had a crazy # of off-the-field incidents. Idk. I just don't see anything in his draft profile, nor do I remember anything at the time, that would have me more excited about him than I am about the top 4 this year - & I went to law school at Florida State so I definitely had a Jameis rooting interest.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
723
The point of my list is that there are QBs(along with every position) most every year who are taken way higher than they should be. We will look back on this draft and see 1-2 of them that worked out and 1-2 that are either mediocre or busts. Mac Jones is a kid who was talked about as being a fringe 1st round pick for most of the season, then got some buzz as a Patriots target at 15, then only after Shanahan traded up to 3 that there was talk of Jones going anywhere near the top 10.

Winston/Mariota generated just as much buzz pre-draft as Wilson/Fields/Lance. Same with Mayfield/Darnold/Allen and to a lesser extent Rosen and also Kyler Murray in 2019. Even back in 2012, it was viewed that Luck and RG3 were can't miss guys.

This is just me, but if I were running a team I'd pause and seriously think about whether one of these guys are going to be good enough to basically punt on a couple drafts to go get in the top 5. I am not questioning their talent nor do I think all of them are going to bust. If one of these guys fell to a point where I could move up and not give up multiple 1st round picks I would really consider it. I just don't feel like any of the guys available after Lawrence are can't miss and would be willing to put all my cards on the table for them.
I absolutely agree with the premise - I just don't think Fields or Lance are reaches. I could of course be 100% wrong, but that's the nature of having opinions.

& RGIII had a really bright NFL career ahead of him before Shanny Sr. broke him :/
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
21,734
Someone like Mcshay does give prospects points out of a hundred so anyone who has an ESPN password could make the comparison. His ratings are a pretty good "consensus" view.
McShay probably isn't a good consensus. He's very down on this class, and has some rather unusual past grades (he was the world's biggest Gabbert truther for example). Based on this year, he'd have all 4 over Watson, Mahomes, Trubisky, Locker, about even with Allen, Goff, Wentz, Bortles, Rosen. Below... Mariota, Cam, RG3, Darnold, Tannehill, Stafford, Gabbert, Sanchez, Bradford, Jameis. Rayn and Luck.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
13,180
New York City
McShay probably isn't a good consensus. He's very down on this class, and has some rather unusual past grades (he was the world's biggest Gabbert truther for example). Based on this year, he'd have all 4 over Watson, Mahomes, Trubisky, Locker, about even with Allen, Goff, Wentz, Bortles, Rosen. Below... Mariota, Cam, RG3, Darnold, Tannehill, Stafford, Gabbert, Sanchez, Bradford, Jameis. Rayn and Luck.
It's not a perfect measure for seeing what consensus grades are but it's not terrible. Saying the 4 are roughly goff/wentz/bortles/rosen/allen prospects seems about right based on how others describe them.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,550
Hingham, MA
What the “two of the four or five will probably bust” argument ignores - and the argument is not without at least some merit - is that circumstance matters so, so much. If the Pats trade to four, wouldn’t you give whomever they select a much, much better chance of being a great player than whomever the Jets select at two? I don’t even care what the names are. I say this both from the standpoint of that I trust the Pats evaluation more, and I have more faith in their system, program, and coaching.

Edit YMMV but to me it doesn’t feel like anyone is “talking themselves” into these QBs with the exception of Jones, whose story feels similar to a Murray or Mayfield.
 

Joe Sixpack

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2002
5,363
Canton, MA
What the “two of the four or five will probably bust” argument ignores - and the argument is not without at least some merit - is that circumstance matters so, so much. If the Pats trade to four, wouldn’t you give whomever they select a much, much better chance of being a great player than whomever the Jets select at two? I don’t even care what the names are. I say this both from the standpoint of that I trust the Pats evaluation more, and I have more faith in their system, program, and coaching.
Seriously...how much better is the hit rate on top-5 or top-10 draft pick QBs if you simply exclude the Jets and Browns?
 

Jimbodandy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
5,497
around the way
What the “two of the four or five will probably bust” argument ignores - and the argument is not without at least some merit - is that circumstance matters so, so much. If the Pats trade to four, wouldn’t you give whomever they select a much, much better chance of being a great player than whomever the Jets select at two? I don’t even care what the names are. I say this both from the standpoint of that I trust the Pats evaluation more, and I have more faith in their system, program, and coaching.
There's some truth to that for sure, but it's still a fucking inexact process.

For every post that says "look at all the shitbums that we drafted in the last few years--why wouldn't we trade those guys for certainty at QB??", there's a "look at all the QBs drafted high in the last few years who suck" post.

There's no more certainty in drafting a QB high than there is in having a bunch of 1st-3rd round picks at your disposal.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
21,734
It's not a perfect measure for seeing what consensus grades are but it's not terrible. Saying the 4 are roughly goff/wentz/bortles/rosen/allen prospects seems about right based on how others describe them.
Maybe it's just who I pay attention to, but guys like Klassen see Fields as an elite QB prospect, and I've seen several others say that their top 3 (Lawrence, Wilson, Fields) would all be #1 in many other recent years.

There's no more certainty in drafting a QB high than there is in having a bunch of 1st-3rd round picks at your disposal.
Maybe not more certainty... but certainly far more upside. If you hit on a QB it's worth far more than any other pick. So the argument is really... would you trade multiple shots at players who may or may not be good to increase your chances of getting the most valuable thing in the world?

If I tell you that I have 3 boxes... each has a 20% chance of being empty, has a 50% chance of having between 1 and $10 in it, has a 4% chance of having $20 and a 1% chance of having $40 in it.
Would you rather have that, or a single box with a 20% chance of being empty, a 50% chance of having between $5 and $25 in it a 4% chance of having $200 in it, and a 1% chance of having $1M in it?

That's the thing... a top QB prospect has the same downside as a top prospect elsewhere, but a moderate success is worth more than moderate success at any other position, a strong success is worth MUCH more than any other position, and the very top tier of success is worth almost incalculably more than top tier success anywhere else.
 
Last edited:

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
19,308
Philadelphia
Edit YMMV but to me it doesn’t feel like anyone is “talking themselves” into these QBs with the exception of Jones, whose story feels similar to a Murray or Mayfield.
I'm not a serious QB evaluator but it definitely feels to me like a lot of people have talked themselves into Lance despite him playing for only one year against bad competition, hardly ever having to throw the ball much more than 20 times a game, struggling with accuracy even under those very favorable circumstances, and then essentially missing all of last year. I'm not saying people are wrong that he has a good toolkit but its hard for me to really believe that somebody with all of that stuff on his resume is actually a better QB prospect than guys like Mariota, Winston, RGIII, Goff, etc were considered at the time.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,550
Hingham, MA
There's some truth to that for sure, but it's still a fucking inexact process.

For every post that says "look at all the shitbums that we drafted in the last few years--why wouldn't we trade those guys for certainty at QB??", there's a "look at all the QBs drafted high in the last few years who suck" post.

There's no more certainty in drafting a QB high than there is in having a bunch of 1st-3rd round picks at your disposal.
Fully agree that it is inexact and you are taking a risk. But the thing is, unless you have 1/1 AND the guy is generational (Peyton, Luck, Lawrence), it’s always going to be a risk.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,550
Hingham, MA
I'm not a serious QB evaluator but it definitely feels to me like a lot of people have talked themselves into Lance despite him playing for only one year against bad competition, hardly ever having to throw the ball much more than 20 times a game, struggling with accuracy even under those very favorable circumstances, and then essentially missing all of last year. I'm not saying people are wrong that he has a good toolkit but its hard for me to really believe that somebody with all of that stuff on his resume is actually a better QB prospect than guys like Mariota, Winston, RGIII, Goff, etc were considered at the time.
That’s all fair, but he does come from a Pro Style offense and same school as Wentz, who, while he has had some struggles, I think has adequately proven that coming from NDSU isn’t an automatic ding.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
723
I'm not a serious QB evaluator but it definitely feels to me like a lot of people have talked themselves into Lance despite him playing for only one year against bad competition, hardly ever having to throw the ball much more than 20 times a game, struggling with accuracy even under those very favorable circumstances, and then essentially missing all of last year. I'm not saying people are wrong that he has a good toolkit but its hard for me to really believe that somebody with all of that stuff on his resume is actually a better QB prospect than guys like Mariota, Winston, RGIII, Goff, etc were considered at the time.
As a 19 y/o playing with no notable skill position players he completed 67% of his passes, threw for 28 TDs & 0 interceptions & ran for 1,100 yards & 14 TDs.

Plus he has like every intangible thing that will ensure that he develops as a pro both in terms of football intelligence as well as football passion.

Mariota had no pocket awareness, Winston was an interception prone statue, RGIII was an all-time elite prospect who had his career sadly derailed by an avoidable injury, & Jared Goff has a weak arm & lacked timing & accuracy (I thought Wentz was a much better prospect in that draft... maybe I'm just irrationally high on toolsy NDSU guys?).
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
49,305
deep inside Guido territory
Fully agree that it is inexact and you are taking a risk. But the thing is, unless you have 1/1 AND the guy is generational (Peyton, Luck, Lawrence), it’s always going to be a risk.
If it's always a risk outside of the generational guys, why not keep the 15 pick to take a premium player at another position(say one of Parsons/Slater/Darrisaw/Horn or one of the top WRs are there) and take a shot on a Kyle Trask or a Kellen Mond in the 2nd round? If I'm not coming out of the draft with Lawrence and I'm picking where the Pats are I think it would be better to get more bites at the apple in terms of building the roster instead of putting all my apples in the Fields/Lance basket.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
21,734
If it's always a risk outside of the generational guys, why not keep the 15 pick to take a premium player at another position(say one of Parsons/Slater/Darrisaw/Horn or one of the top WRs are there) and take a shot on a Kyle Trask or a Kellen Mond in the 2nd round? If I'm not coming out of the draft with Lawrence and I'm picking where the Pats are I think it would be better to get more bites at the apple in terms of building the roster instead of putting all my apples in the Fields/Lance basket.
The obvious answer to that is that the success rate of top prospects at QB may not be ideal, it's miles better than the rate of hitting on any other QB prospect.
I mean... the failure rate at the other positions can be high too.
You're trading decent odds at something incredibly valuable (That you need) for decent odds at something less valuable and terrible odds at the valuable thing you need.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.