Pats QB Options

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
20,794
I'm not sure that Cam's a long term answer. It will be disappointing if all four QBs are gone by #4 leaving New England hoping that Mac Jones slides into the teens. Jamie Newman doesn't do a lot for me as a long term answer at the QB spot. But I like his chances more than Mond's.
If the 4 best rookies are gone there isn't a "long term" solution to be had. That's the point of the Cam deal, he's a cheap short term fix until you can draft someone else. None of the other possibilities (Jimmy G, Minshew, Teddy B, etc.) are long term solutions, and some may not even be better than Cam in terms of upside.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
9,370
NH
I'm not sure that Cam's a long term answer. It will be disappointing if all four QBs are gone by #4 leaving New England hoping that Mac Jones slides into the teens. Jamie Newman doesn't do a lot for me as a long term answer at the QB spot. But I like his chances more than Mond's.
Why Newman over Mond? Newman is older, less experienced, slower and less accurate.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
20,794
Why Newman over Mond? Newman is older, less experienced, slower and less accurate.
He has a better arm for one. Also, I'm not sure less accurate is really true. There are areas he is more accurate (particularly he's much more accurate downfield (15+ yards).
Mond is probably the better short thrower, but Newman is the more skilled downfield thrower and creates more explosive plays.
I get the Newman over Mond strategy... neither is ever likely to be a really accurate dink and dunk type QB. So I'd rather have the guy who can really sling it downfield and go for a big-play field stretching pass game to fit with the running game.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,064
Do you mean ‘long term’ as in a full season? Or 2-3 years?
next off season is another chance to trade up for, trade for, or sign a QB. Especially if he were to trade down this year, he might be able to use
draft capital to trade for someone next offseason.
He might prefer to trade for someone he knows more about (because of their time in the league) than the Crapshoot of drafting the 4th or 5th best QB in this years draft.
Edit: Trading down this year might get him the pieces to trade for next years Wentz or what have you.
I'm not as down on Cam as a lot of people here, but he's probably no better than an averagish QB at best. He's fine for next year, but he's physically breaking down and I don't expect him to last. And "next year's Wentz" is what I meant when I made the remark about the long term answer being a retread of some sort. It's going to end up being someone like Goff or Darnold that's underperformed.

So if Fields and Lance go 3/4 then I do expect the Patriots to trade down and pick up extra draft capital for a future deal. Next year's QB class is about as exciting as Davis Mills, and aside from Ridder, pretty smurfy.
 
Last edited:

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,064
Why Newman over Mond? Newman is older, less experienced, slower and less accurate.
See below. Newman is definitely more accurate on on downfield throws if the Patriots could add another deep threat at the WR spot in the draft (they have a shorter term answer in house now, but could use another one).

He has a better arm for one. Also, I'm not sure less accurate is really true. There are areas he is more accurate (particularly he's much more accurate downfield (15+ yards).
Mond is probably the better short thrower, but Newman is the more skilled downfield thrower and creates more explosive plays.
I get the Newman over Mond strategy... neither is ever likely to be a really accurate dink and dunk type QB. So I'd rather have the guy who can really sling it downfield and go for a big-play field stretching pass game to fit with the running game.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
9,370
NH
He has a better arm for one. Also, I'm not sure less accurate is really true. There are areas he is more accurate (particularly he's much more accurate downfield (15+ yards).
Mond is probably the better short thrower, but Newman is the more skilled downfield thrower and creates more explosive plays.
I get the Newman over Mond strategy... neither is ever likely to be a really accurate dink and dunk type QB. So I'd rather have the guy who can really sling it downfield and go for a big-play field stretching pass game to fit with the running game.
Newman is a much bigger project than Mond and doesn’t really offer a higher ceiling. Mond still has a good arm, much better awareness and is more explosive creating plays with his feet. Getting hung up on downfield throws when both are inaccurate overall seems silly.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
43,943
Fields going 3rd is now -190 at Betonline.
Because Shanahan smiled at Fields pro day? Gotta pull in some money from the suckers I guess.

To be clear, I'm not saying he's not--but if that line movement is because Fields threw well at a pro day, then...
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
20,794
Newman is a much bigger project than Mond and doesn’t really offer a higher ceiling. Mond still has a good arm, much better awareness and is more explosive creating plays with his feet. Getting hung up on downfield throws when both are inaccurate overall seems silly.
I think there are three things...
1. Newman appears to be not getting the same hype and so may be available later...
2. Newman's accuracy is more average than poor in certain areas... in particular downfield throws.
3. Mond appears to have a possibly uncurable weakness in that anything past a certain point downfield he's not just bad at, he's really bad at.

To me.... I just don't see what the path to Mond as good NFL QB is.

I don't really worry much about explosiveness or top end speed in the running game for a QB... if anything I think I'd rather have Newman with his Cam-like size than a quicker lighter QB. I think Newman is the more skilled runner of the two, and he'd be a red zone threat.

The arm is the thing to me... I don't think Mond has a good arm, and he's not just bad at the deep ball, he's pretty terrible.

To me, we've seen big athletic QBs with big arms and questionable college accuracy and underdeveloped field reading work in the NFL, I can't really think of a guy who had a sub-par arm and sub-par accuracy who made it. Even accurate guys who can't drive the ball downfield struggle.

To me if I'm taking a gamble, I see Newman as they guy who has elite qualities (his arm) and needs to improve his reads more than anything. Mond, I worry about his ability to ever really challenge an NFL defense.


Klassen's numbers are interesting on them for seeing where each struggled the most....
View: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Tp_UPHgVsRMJpXAtyyvKVrLRfdeNey-OZS0iDPu2f5E/edit#gid=855127829
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
20,794
Because Shanahan smiled at Fields pro day? Gotta pull in some money from the suckers I guess.

To be clear, I'm not saying he's not--but if that line movement is because Fields threw well at a pro day, then...
Because Fields was always considered the significantly better prospect, and the only reason Jones was getting good odds was leaks saying SF traded up for him. Once leaks put that in doubt, the odds are going to shift quickly.
 

Phil Plantier

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Mar 7, 2002
3,031
I know I've plugged Phil Perry's interview with J. T. O'Connell a couple of times on the board, but what Perry said crystallized something I've been thinking for a while: maybe the Pats are going the Van Noy route of getting cheap vet QBs rather than cheap rookies.

Paraphrasing his rationale: if you draft a rookie QB, his first year is likely to be terrible. His second year has a wide range of outcomes, with the median being "improving." Now it's the third year of a 4-year contract.

But if you take a castoff, they are likely to be better in the first year, and maybe you can fix/work with what's wrong with them so that they're a 5-10 year answer. If not, move on to the next castoff.

Someone will be available after this season. Probably several someones. My money's on Mayfield, but I can also see Ryan, Murray, Wilson, Tua, Drew Lock/Daniel Jones, Goff, Carr. Not to mention meh QBs like Bridgewater, Mariota, Winston, Garoppolo, etc.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
43,943
Because Fields was always considered the significantly better prospect, and the only reason Jones was getting good odds was leaks saying SF traded up for him. Once leaks put that in doubt, the odds are going to shift quickly.
Have guys like Schefter and the like walked that back? Because some big names said it was Jones and I don't know if they've softened on that. They might have, I don't see everything obviously.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,251
Mansfield MA
I know I've plugged Phil Perry's interview with J. T. O'Connell a couple of times on the board, but what Perry said crystallized something I've been thinking for a while: maybe the Pats are going the Van Noy route of getting cheap vet QBs rather than cheap rookies.

Paraphrasing his rationale: if you draft a rookie QB, his first year is likely to be terrible. His second year has a wide range of outcomes, with the median being "improving." Now it's the third year of a 4-year contract.

But if you take a castoff, they are likely to be better in the first year, and maybe you can fix/work with what's wrong with them so that they're a 5-10 year answer. If not, move on to the next castoff.

Someone will be available after this season. Probably several someones. My money's on Mayfield, but I can also see Ryan, Murray, Wilson, Tua, Drew Lock/Daniel Jones, Goff, Carr. Not to mention meh QBs like Bridgewater, Mariota, Winston, Garoppolo, etc.
This is basically what Belichick did in Cleveland. Their big QB move was Vinny Testaverde for a song after Testaverde washed out of Tampa Bay.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
20,794
Okay, I'll ask--why aren't Lawrence's numbers better? I mean, they're really good but he only has 1 box that's dark green--Fields and Jones have 5. And he has 2 light red.
He's not quite as accurate? Lawrence isn't the most accurate QB in this class, he's #1 because he's still quite accurate, the physical tools, the field reading, the release speed, and he's done it for 3 years with exceptional consistency.

One thing that does skew the color coding is that it's yearly only, and Klassen has said that Fields is the single highest graded accuracy he's had on a QB since he started this. Eyeballing it, in the yardage breakdowns, he's have had 2 more green zones last year, and at least 1 of the pink would be average.

If you go to the Total Accuracy tab, he's 4th, but last year he'd have been clear #2 behind Burrow on that stat (and all 3 of the guys ahead of him this year would be ahead of Burrow), and he'd have bumped up a color grade (or even 2) in almost every category.

Basically.... this QB class is insane at the top. It's one reason so many people are baffled by the rumors of Fields dropping... Jones... sure he has mobility and arm concerns, but Fields on paper looks like he's closer to Lawrence than not, on paper he and Lawrence look like two of the best QB prospects in a long time.
 
If it were possible to wager on which of the top QB prospects this year will be seen in 10 years' time as a bust, I might just pick Lawrence. That's partly because I'd almost certainly get the best odds on him, but it's mostly because he's almost certainly going to be coached by Urban Meyer for at least a couple of years, within a pretty dysfunctional Jaguars organization. No matter what you think about his tools and skills, he's not going to a franchise that is likely to get the best out of him. (The Jets are actually set up better for success - I can't believe I've actually just typed that - although of course if I were a QB I'd absolutely want to go to San Francisco and learn from Shanahan.)
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,095
Hingham, MA
If it were possible to wager on which of the top QB prospects this year will be seen in 10 years' time as a bust, I might just pick Lawrence. That's partly because I'd almost certainly get the best odds on him, but it's mostly because he's almost certainly going to be coached by Urban Meyer for at least a couple of years, within a pretty dysfunctional Jaguars organization. No matter what you think about his tools and skills, he's not going to a franchise that is likely to get the best out of him. (The Jets are actually set up better for success - I can't believe I've actually just typed that - although of course if I were a QB I'd absolutely want to go to San Francisco and learn from Shanahan.)
I think you have to rank Wilson as by far the #1 bust contender, pending who ends up taking Fields / Lance / Mac. That said, I would probably take a bet that whoever SF takes will have a better career than Lawrence, especially if I was given favorable odds. I'd probably say the same about the Pats too if they take a QB.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
5,624
New York City
I know I've plugged Phil Perry's interview with J. T. O'Connell a couple of times on the board, but what Perry said crystallized something I've been thinking for a while: maybe the Pats are going the Van Noy route of getting cheap vet QBs rather than cheap rookies.

Paraphrasing his rationale: if you draft a rookie QB, his first year is likely to be terrible. His second year has a wide range of outcomes, with the median being "improving." Now it's the third year of a 4-year contract.

But if you take a castoff, they are likely to be better in the first year, and maybe you can fix/work with what's wrong with them so that they're a 5-10 year answer. If not, move on to the next castoff.

Someone will be available after this season. Probably several someones. My money's on Mayfield, but I can also see Ryan, Murray, Wilson, Tua, Drew Lock/Daniel Jones, Goff, Carr. Not to mention meh QBs like Bridgewater, Mariota, Winston, Garoppolo, etc.
This makes sense in theory, and I agree it does seem like Belichick is thinking this way to some degree. Problem is I'm not sure if he's right or, at best, a ton of things have to go right for this to work. I guess SF and Jimmy G showed that this approach could work, and Nick Foles on the Eagles is kind of also an example (although the Eagles of course didn't intentionally seek out a cheap vet QB to start for them - Wentz was Plan A). Other than that, though, the Super Bowl teams from the last two decades have pretty much all had QBs that they either drafted themselves, or paid market rate for to get via free agency (Brady last year as the obvious example, but I think Brees qualifies here too).

I suspect in reality the Pats will take a hybrid approach wherein they will jump on a QB they really like and spend significant draft and/or monetary assets to land him either in the draft, through trade, or via free agency, but will not spend significant assets to get a hyped QB just for the sake of getting a QB. Which is I think on draft day they either trade up to 7-8 (with outside shot at trading up to 4 depending on how the first three picks go) to get a specific QB prospect, or don't draft a QB in the first round at all and either take someone at a different position or trade down or out of the first round entirely. They aren't going to draft Mac Jones at 15 just because they feel like they "need" a QB prospect.
 
I think you have to rank Wilson as by far the #1 bust contender, pending who ends up taking Fields / Lance / Mac.
I agree that Wilson has high bust potential - higher than Lawrence, especially if he goes to the Jets at #2 as everyone expects and has to learn how to be a QB in the New York media market. But I'm sure Vegas would price that bust potential into their odds (in the hypothetical world in which it's possible to set "bust" odds), whereas Lawrence would be my better bet, if that makes sense.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,095
Hingham, MA
I agree that Wilson has high bust potential - higher than Lawrence, especially if he goes to the Jets at #2 as everyone expects and has to learn how to be a QB in the New York media market. But I'm sure Vegas would price that bust potential into their odds (in the hypothetical world in which it's possible to set "bust" odds), whereas Lawrence would be my better bet, if that makes sense.
Totally agree, if there was a market for such a thing I think betting on Lawrence to bust would be a fantastic bet.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
20,017
I know I've plugged Phil Perry's interview with J. T. O'Connell a couple of times on the board, but what Perry said crystallized something I've been thinking for a while: maybe the Pats are going the Van Noy route of getting cheap vet QBs rather than cheap rookies.

Paraphrasing his rationale: if you draft a rookie QB, his first year is likely to be terrible. His second year has a wide range of outcomes, with the median being "improving." Now it's the third year of a 4-year contract.

But if you take a castoff, they are likely to be better in the first year, and maybe you can fix/work with what's wrong with them so that they're a 5-10 year answer. If not, move on to the next castoff.

Someone will be available after this season. Probably several someones. My money's on Mayfield, but I can also see Ryan, Murray, Wilson, Tua, Drew Lock/Daniel Jones, Goff, Carr. Not to mention meh QBs like Bridgewater, Mariota, Winston, Garoppolo, etc.
For years, the Pats have always been thin somewhere. It's sort of BB's MO, as building for the long haul AND building a bulletproof juggernaut is nearly impossible. Maybe this theory is the manifestation of that at QB, while they load up at all the other positions for a change.
 

67YAZ

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2000
3,392
Totally agree, if there was a market for such a thing I think betting on Lawrence to bust would be a fantastic bet.
Interesting to think about how to measure "busting" for a kid who has been ballyhooed as a future #1 pick since he was 17? I think that's the first time I read about him.

What would say - 1 or no Pro Bowls? Under 20k yards for career? No playoff wins? Career passer rating under 90? (Stafford sits at 89.9, Chad Pennington at 90.1.)
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,095
Hingham, MA
Interesting to think about how to measure "busting" for a kid who has been ballyhooed as a future #1 pick since he was 17? I think that's the first time I read about him.

What would say - 1 or no Pro Bowls? Under 20k yards for career? No playoff wins? Career passer rating under 90? (Stafford sits at 89.9, Chad Pennington at 90.1.)
Yeah obviously it's a hard thing to define. I'd go with no Pro Bowls but with guys opting out like 10 QBs a year make the Pro Bowl so he could make one even if he's not very good. Passer rating is hard because that seems to be on an upward trajectory over the past 15 years - Drew Bledsoe was no bust and his best single season rating was 87.7! (career 77.1!).

I think I would actually go with something like 5th year option isn't picked up (and he doesn't sign an extension prior to that). If he's not on Jacksonville in his 5th year then he will have busted. Like Darnold or whatever.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
6,976
Interesting to think about how to measure "busting" for a kid who has been ballyhooed as a future #1 pick since he was 17? I think that's the first time I read about him.
Generally I would consider a first rounder a bust if the team that drafted them doesn't at least pick up the option. But for Lawerence I would say that if he doesn't play well enough to warrant say a big time extension 3-4 years from now, people will call him a bust.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
68,508
Oregon
There have been 25 QB taken 1/1 since the merged draft ... which is a really nice number for doing percentages

Joe Burrow
Kyler Murray
Baker Mayfield
Jared Goff
James Winston
Andrew Luck
Cam Newton
Sam Bradford
Matthew Stafford
JaMarcus Russell
Alex Smith
Eli Manning
Carson Palmer
David Carr
Michael Vick
Tim Couch
Peyton Manning
Drew Bledsoe
Jeff George
Troy Aikman
Vinny Testaverde
John Elway
Steve Bartkowski
Jim Plunkett
Terry Bradshaw

While not all of them became elite, I think you can only consider 3 of them to be total busts, which in theory is 12%, if my rudimentary math is correct. Given that the most recent of these was nearly 20 years ago, chances of Lawrence being a bust would be a sucker's bet
 
Last edited:

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
7,609
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
There have been 25 QB take 1/1 since the merged draft ... which is a really nice number for doing percentages

Joe Burrow
Kyler Murray
Baker Mayfield
Jared Goff
James Winston
Andrew Luck
Cam Newton
Sam Bradford
Matthew Stafford
JaMarcus Russell
Alex Smith
Eli Manning
Carson Palmer
David Carr
Michael Vick
Tim Couch
Peyton Manning
Drew Bledsoe
Jeff George
Troy Aikman
Vinny Testaverde
John Elway
Steve Bartkowski
Jim Plunkett
Terry Bradshaw

While not all of them became elite, I think you can only consider 3 of them to be total busts, which in theory is 12%, if my rudimentary math is correct. Given that the most recent of these was nearly 20 years ago, chances of Lawrence being a bust would be a sucker's bet
Tim Couch's career is really weird. Dude was basically a league average QB who took the Browns to the playoffs and then got benched the following season. I mean, '99-'02 Tim Couch was a better QB than '04-'07 Eli Manning. Sure, he's a bust, I just think both him and Carr could have succeeded in different circumstances. Out of all those guys Jamarcus is the only one I'd say is a disaster of a pick.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
5,624
New York City
While not all of them became elite, I think you can only consider 3 of them to be total busts, which in theory is 12%, if my rudimentary math is correct. Given that the most recent of these was nearly 20 years ago, chances of Lawrence being a bust would be a sucker's bet
I think given expectations Winston and Bradford would absolutely qualify as "busts" - maybe not as bad as Russell, but if Trevor Lawrence ends up being a mediocre-to-slightly-above-average QB on a bad Jacksonville team for 5ish years, which is more or less what happened with Winston and Bradford, Jaguars fans will likely look back on the pick with disappointment - particularly if one of the other top 5 QBs becomes a star.

That said, your overall point that busts at 1/1 are relatively rare is clearly correct, and there seem to be fewer in recent years, likely due to advances in scouting and analytics.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
20,794
Why didn't we take Fromm at 159 last year then?
Like Mac Jones is probably better than Fromm, but if that's the type of QB we want why not take a similar one in the 5th last year.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
68,508
Oregon
I think given expectations Winston and Bradford would absolutely qualify as "busts"
I'll disagree here, although it's likely a semantics debate. Both have been serviceable enough to be above "bust" level and more in the category of those who just never became elite.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
68,508
Oregon
Like Mac Jones is probably better than Fromm, but if that's the type of QB we want why not take a similar one in the 5th last year.
Agreed ... which is why I doubt the "speculation" in those tweets, unless the Patriots believe that Jones actually is a round or two better than the second-tier quarterbacks in this draft.

In a draft with this much quality at various other positions, missing on a first-round quarterback is a double-whammy
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
7,609
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
Agreed ... which is why I doubt the "speculation" in those tweets, unless the Patriots believe that Jones actually is a round or two better than the second-tier quarterbacks in this draft.

In a draft with this much quality at various other positions, missing on a first-round quarterback is a double-whammy
On the other hand the roster seems solid enough that they don't have obvious needs anywhere else. If they like a guy, I'm all for going QB as early as possible, I have faith in this coching staff to identify the right player.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,095
Hingham, MA
In a draft with this much quality at various other positions, missing on a first-round quarterback is a double-whammy
Definitely if they have to trade up, but if someone falls to them at 15, and then he fails, that wouldn't be catastrophic IMO
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
19,034
Philadelphia
Why didn't we take Fromm at 159 last year then?
Like Mac Jones is probably better than Fromm, but if that's the type of QB we want why not take a similar one in the 5th last year.
Maybe they just evaluated Fromm really negatively.

I am prepared for anything but Bill Belichick liking a very accurate, smart QB who absolutely destroyed elite competition and whose character and intangibles Nick Saban raves about...seems like a pretty good bet.
 
Last edited:

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
68,508
Oregon
Definitely if they have to trade up, but if someone falls to them at 15, and then he fails, that wouldn't be catastrophic IMO
Depends on who falls, of course, but I'd hate to seem them take a QB just because (insert name here) fell. I'm starting to learn cornerback, given age and looming free agency in the defensive backfield
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
68,508
Oregon
If they like a guy, I'm all for going QB as early as possible, I have faith in this coching staff to identify the right player.
The list is probably somewhere in this thread, but who's the best non-6th round-flier they drafted at quarterback? The injury-laden JG? Cassell?
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
20,794
Maybe they just evaluated Fromm really negatively.

I am prepared for anything but Bill Belichick liking a very accurate, smart QB who absolutely destroyed elite competition and whose character and intangibles Nick Saban raves about...seems like a pretty good bet.
Maybe. I think some of that is overblown... he was accurate, the rest....
What is our basis for smart? I mean he played in a very RPO heavy offense where he didn't have much to read, he didn't have to audible or make adjustments. He played behind the best talent in CFB by a wide margin.

As to character... he has DUI related issues (I'm giving him a pass on the possible racist related stuff), and Nick Saban isn't exactly the guy you trust on character.

Jones could be fine, it just seems weird to me to lock in on a marginal physical talent guy with a premium pick... that's burned Bill many times before at other positions.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
20,794
The list is probably somewhere in this thread, but who's the best non-6th round-flier they drafted at quarterback? The injury-laden JG? Cassell?
Brissett maybe?
Jimmy G has the best year.
Excluding 7th rounders....
Mallett- total whiff
O'Connell- Whiff
Kingsbury- Whiff
Davey- Whiff
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
19,034
Philadelphia
Maybe. I think some of that is overblown... he was accurate, the rest....
What is our basis for smart? I mean he played in a very RPO heavy offense where he didn't have much to read, he didn't have to audible or make adjustments. He played behind the best talent in CFB by a wide margin.

As to character... he has DUI related issues (I'm giving him a pass on the possible racist related stuff), and Nick Saban isn't exactly the guy you trust on character.

Jones could be fine, it just seems weird to me to lock in on a marginal physical talent guy with a premium pick... that's burned Bill many times before at other positions.
I guess you can debate it back and forth in the abstract but it seems pretty clear to me that Belichick not only goes back a long time with Saban but greatly respects his program and his opinions on players. Unless Saban is telling him things in private that completely contradict everything he has said publicly about Jones, I don't see how anybody would be surprised by Belichick liking Jones.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,095
Hingham, MA
Depends on who falls, of course, but I'd hate to seem them take a QB just because (insert name here) fell. I'm starting to learn cornerback, given age and looming free agency in the defensive backfield
If I had to place a bet on what position their first selection would be, I'd call it CB 1A and OL 1B
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
20,794
I guess you can debate it back and forth in the abstract but it seems pretty clear to me that Belichick not only goes back a long time with Saban but greatly respects his program and his opinions on players. Unless Saban is telling him things in private that completely contradict everything he has said publicly about Jones, I don't see how anybody would be surprised by Belichick liking Jones.
Oh I get that Saban and Bill are close, I'm pointing out that Saban is a weasel and he'd have told you what a great kid Aaron Hernandez was if he went to Alabama,.
I just am saying that picking Jones early seems like a high risk low reward move. Not that Bill won't, just it would be concerning. Bill hasn't exactly nailed the draft in recent years, and a part of that has been a tendency to value coach opinions and polish too highly and NFL level physical traits too lowly. It's why we ended up a with a big polished WR who can't separate instead of one of the physical marvels who have excelled for example. Or why we have a bunch of LBs who are too slow for the NFL.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
19,034
Philadelphia
Oh I get that Saban and Bill are close, I'm pointing out that Saban is a weasel and he'd have told you what a great kid Aaron Hernandez was if he went to Alabama,.
I just am saying that picking Jones early seems like a high risk low reward move. Not that Bill won't, just it would be concerning. Bill hasn't exactly nailed the draft in recent years, and a part of that has been a tendency to value coach opinions and polish too highly and NFL level physical traits too lowly. It's why we ended up a with a big polished WR who can't separate instead of one of the physical marvels who have excelled for example. Or why we have a bunch of LBs who are too slow for the NFL.
That's fair enough. I'm not really trying to argue what we should or should not do, only that I would not be surprised if we do end up with Jones, for better or for worse (assumedly under the scenario in which the 49ers take Fields #3)
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
7,609
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
The list is probably somewhere in this thread, but who's the best non-6th round-flier they drafted at quarterback? The injury-laden JG? Cassell?
They never had to find a starter in the draft, I don't think it's fair to judge them on past picks at the position (most of which were in the 4th round or later).
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
43,943
Why didn't we take Fromm at 159 last year then?
Like Mac Jones is probably better than Fromm, but if that's the type of QB we want why not take a similar one in the 5th last year.
I've read a lot of that, and if they are that similar why are all the experts thinking Mac Jones is a Day 1 pick and no one thought anything close to that about Fromm?
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
20,794
I've read a lot of that, and if they are that similar why are all the experts thinking Mac Jones is a Day 1 pick and no one thought anything close to that about Fromm?
Jones is better, I don't argue that at all. The question is how much (to me, I'd be very happy with Mac Jones in the 3rd, okay with him in the 2nd maybe even).

The argument basically boils down to.. Mac Jones put up elite numbers in his final season in college, Fromm didn't. So some people argue that was because Jones has truly elite accuracy and that will offset his limitations in the NFL. While others argue that he was in maybe the best situation of any college QB ever, and that he's going to have a ceiling in the pros because he won't be capable of making certain throws. I am a bit surprised that Tua's mediocre first year didn't make people think twice on Jones, given some similar arm concerns.

Fromm really got hurt by going back to school and having a subpar year, if he came out a year earlier he's probably a 2nd rounder, maybe someone talks themselves into him in the 1st.

Edit- also there is a difference between where experts grade guys, vs. where they THINK they'll get drafted. A lot of people have him graded as a 2nd round or 2/3 talent, but recognize he'll get overdrafted.

They never had to find a starter in the draft, I don't think it's fair to judge them on past picks at the position (most of which were in the 4th round or later).
I think his point was more that the staff hasn't really given much reason to assume they'll pick the right guy which the post he was responding to posited. It's not about judging them on their past picks, but more a note that their success rate on the QBs they've taken isn't some great outlier. They might pick the right guy... they might whiff, they've done both at all rounds of the draft.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,251
Mansfield MA
Oh I get that Saban and Bill are close, I'm pointing out that Saban is a weasel and he'd have told you what a great kid Aaron Hernandez was if he went to Alabama,.
I just am saying that picking Jones early seems like a high risk low reward move. Not that Bill won't, just it would be concerning. Bill hasn't exactly nailed the draft in recent years, and a part of that has been a tendency to value coach opinions and polish too highly and NFL level physical traits too lowly. It's why we ended up a with a big polished WR who can't separate instead of one of the physical marvels who have excelled for example. Or why we have a bunch of LBs who are too slow for the NFL.
I don't think that's an accurate characterization of Harry - he tested really well, he is just terrible against press and his route-running is bad. I would not have described him as "polished." A.J. Brown was a lot more polished coming out IMO.

They've gotten burned on different kinds of guys, I think. Some were low-ceiling guys like you describe, some were high-upside guys who flopped, some were injury risks that stayed hurt, etc.

FWIW I don't think we as a species have a great handle on what makes up QB floor and ceiling. Ceiling is not primarily based on physical traits at that position. And every single QB's floor is "useless bust." But I don't love Jones anyway.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
43,943
Jones is better, I don't argue that at all. The question is how much (to me, I'd be very happy with Mac Jones in the 3rd, okay with him in the 2nd maybe even).

The argument basically boils down to.. Mac Jones put up elite numbers in his final season in college, Fromm didn't. So some people argue that was because Jones has truly elite accuracy and that will offset his limitations in the NFL. While others argue that he was in maybe the best situation of any college QB ever, and that he's going to have a ceiling in the pros because he won't be capable of making certain throws. I am a bit surprised that Tua's mediocre first year didn't make people think twice on Jones, given some similar arm concerns.

Fromm really got hurt by going back to school and having a subpar year, if he came out a year earlier he's probably a 2nd rounder, maybe someone talks themselves into him in the 1st.

Edit- also there is a difference between where experts grade guys, vs. where they THINK they'll get drafted. A lot of people have him graded as a 2nd round or 2/3 talent, but recognize he'll get overdrafted.
Thanks for responding.

If we don't have to give up assets to move up, I would likely be perfectly fine if BB and Co. were sold enough to take him at 15, but I know mileage varies on that.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
20,794
I don't think that's an accurate characterization of Harry - he tested really well, he is just terrible against press and his route-running is bad. I would not have described him as "polished." A.J. Brown was a lot more polished coming out IMO.

They've gotten burned on different kinds of guys, I think. Some were low-ceiling guys like you describe, some were high-upside guys who flopped, some were injury risks that stayed hurt, etc.

FWIW I don't think we as a species have a great handle on what makes up QB floor and ceiling. Ceiling is not primarily based on physical traits at that position. And every single QB's floor is "useless bust." But I don't love Jones anyway.
Harry did not test really well. His 40 was averagish, his splits were poor, his 3 cone and shuttle were poor. He benched a lot and his vertical was good, but his profile definitely was not "top WR athlete".
I do get that QB is the position where ceiling is most impacted by non-physical traits, but I think you're undervaluing them because the one trait that does heavily impact ceiling is the arm. QBs who can't make certain throws have a hard ceiling. It's why a bunch of guys with not great arms got injured once and the ceiling fell (Bradford, Pennington, etc.) There is a minimum level of arm talent you need to be an elite NFL QB, if you don't have it you can make every read perfectly and you still won't get there, especially if you also can't create with your legs.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,251
Mansfield MA
Harry did not test really well. His 40 was averagish, his splits were poor, his 3 cone and shuttle were poor. He benched a lot and his vertical was good, but his profile definitely was not "top WR athlete".
His 40 was averageish, as you say. His 3-cone and shuttle were also pretty much average. But having average speed and agility at 6'3" 228 pounds is really impressive. He has an 8.45 RAS. But if you don't consider size part of the physical traits, fine: what I'm really objecting to is characterizing him as polished. He wasn't and isn't, and obviously he wasn't a high-floor guy by any stretch of the imagination.

I do get that QB is the position where ceiling is most impacted by non-physical traits, but I think you're undervaluing them because the one trait that does heavily impact ceiling is the arm. QBs who can't make certain throws have a hard ceiling. It's why a bunch of guys with not great arms got injured once and the ceiling fell (Bradford, Pennington, etc.) There is a minimum level of arm talent you need to be an elite NFL QB, if you don't have it you can make every read perfectly and you still won't get there, especially if you also can't create with your legs.
What you're describing is floor, not ceiling. I agree some guys lack the requisite arm strength to be starting NFL QBs, but that just means guys with questionable arms have low floors. For guys with adequate arm strength, I don't think it has much impact on ceiling. Drew Brees had a top-10 all-time career with an arm that was no better than average and often worse. Denver Peyton Manning had a terrible arm and was still very effective until his last season.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.