***NFL Draft Talk***

[Beetlejuice]

Adam Schefter’s gut is telling him that the Giants won’t take a QB @ 6. He believes the Giants are in win now mode and will look to address QB later. Makes sense since they potentially can get Nabers or Harrison.

https://www.profootballnetwork.com/nfl- ... 24-trends/

[Oriole81]

Adam Schefter’s gut is telling him that the Giants won’t take a QB @ 6. He believes the Giants are in win now mode and will look to address QB later. Makes sense since they potentially can get Nabers or Harrison.

https://www.profootballnetwork.com/nfl- ... 24-trends/

That would be awesome for us.
Though I do think them taking a QB would actually be a "win now" move, selfishly I would be thrilled if they see otherwise.

[-VikingsTw-]

Adam Schefter’s gut is telling him that the Giants won’t take a QB @ 6. He believes the Giants are in win now mode and will look to address QB later. Makes sense since they potentially can get Nabers or Harrison.

https://www.profootballnetwork.com/nfl- ... 24-trends/

That would be awesome for us.
Though I do think them taking a QB would actually be a "win now" move, selfishly I would be thrilled if they see otherwise.

This has been my feeling as well. I just don't see it unless Maye made it then maybe.

They got three QB's on the roster, one paid very well, one that played decent last year and another FA for whatever reason.

Lost their star RB. They need an all star weapon and most teams always draft the severe need.

[Oriole81]

Adam Schefter’s gut is telling him that the Giants won’t take a QB @ 6. He believes the Giants are in win now mode and will look to address QB later. Makes sense since they potentially can get Nabers or Harrison.

https://www.profootballnetwork.com/nfl- ... 24-trends/

That would be awesome for us.
Though I do think them taking a QB would actually be a "win now" move, selfishly I would be thrilled if they see otherwise.

This has been my feeling as well. I just don't see it unless Maye made it then maybe.

They got three QB's on the roster, one paid very well, one that played decent last year and another FA for whatever reason.

Lost their star RB. They need an all star weapon and most teams always draft the severe need.

They can get out from under Jones after 2024.
Are you saying that Devito played decent last year? Maybe in a Minshew out of nowhere kind of way, but no team should ever be comfortable with that at the top of their QB depth chart.
Lock is trash.

They could easily justify taking a WR at 6, and then taking their WR in RD2. It's a super deep WR class again, and the hit rate with Day 2 WRs is a helluva lot higher than Day 2 QBs.

[Beef Supreme]

I think a new opinion is emerging with some teams about roster management. The school of thought says to build up a good roster first and then make moves for your quarterback, not to draft a quarterback onto a bad roster and build around him slowly. Set your eventual guy up for success and not for failure.

Sure, you can draft a guy with the plan of not starting him until both he and the roster are ready, but if the team flounders there suddenly becomes a lot of pressure to put the new guy in. And if the bridge starter guy gets hurt, then your hand gets forced.

I’m not saying all teams believe this. But I think some do and it makes sense. With regards to New York, that’s a pretty shitty offensive roster. Defense is good, but offense is shit. Taking a QB there would be setting him up to fail. The idea that they might draft OL and offensive skill guys is not preposterous. Then if Jones still sucks, and he might, make your move for the QB in a year or two.

Look at some case studies.

Chicago- Fields failed badly going to a really bad roster.

49ers- Unheralded Purdy succeeds going to a stacked roster

Jacksonville- Trevor Lawrence was the last best prospect since Andrew Luck. He’s coming along, but it’s been kind of a slog. He hasn’t exactly lit the NFL on fire and the Jags are still trying to complete the roster build around him.

An example to the contrary (to not be accused of cherry-picking) would be CJ Stroud in Houston. They did some nice things, but nobody thought their roster was ready to make the jump they did. So both approaches have validity. And that’s my point. There is more than one way to skin a cat and forgoing the QB when your roster sucks for more picks and building up your talent is a perfectly legitimate philosophy.

[William Munny]

I think a new opinion is emerging with some teams about roster management. The school of thought says to build up a good roster first and then make moves for your quarterback, not to draft a quarterback onto a bad roster and build around him slowly. Set your eventual guy up for success and not for failure.

Sure, you can draft a guy with the plan of not starting him until both he and the roster are ready, but if the team flounders there suddenly becomes a lot of pressure to put the new guy in. And if the bridge starter guy gets hurt, then your hand gets forced.

I’m not saying all teams believe this. But I think some do and it makes sense. With regards to New York, that’s a pretty shitty offensive roster. Defense is good, but offense is shit. Taking a QB there would be setting him up to fail. The idea that they might draft OL and offensive skill guys is not preposterous. Then if Jones still sucks, and he might, make your move for the QB in a year or two.

Look at some case studies.

Chicago- Fields failed badly going to a really bad roster.

49ers- Unheralded Purdy succeeds going to a stacked roster

Jacksonville- Trevor Lawrence was the last best prospect since Andrew Luck. He’s coming along, but it’s been kind of a slog. He hasn’t exactly lit the NFL on fire and the Jags are still trying to complete the roster build around him.

An example to the contrary (to not be accused of cherry-picking) would be CJ Stroud in Houston. They did some nice things, but nobody thought their roster was ready to make the jump they did. So both approaches have validity. And that’s my point. There is more than one way to skin a cat and forgoing the QB when your roster sucks for more picks and building up your talent is a perfectly legitimate philosophy.

Reads like you are trying to convince NE to pass on a QB. Management will do whatever they think will help them to keep their jobs.

[Beef Supreme]

I think a new opinion is emerging with some teams about roster management. The school of thought says to build up a good roster first and then make moves for your quarterback, not to draft a quarterback onto a bad roster and build around him slowly. Set your eventual guy up for success and not for failure.

Sure, you can draft a guy with the plan of not starting him until both he and the roster are ready, but if the team flounders there suddenly becomes a lot of pressure to put the new guy in. And if the bridge starter guy gets hurt, then your hand gets forced.

I’m not saying all teams believe this. But I think some do and it makes sense. With regards to New York, that’s a pretty shitty offensive roster. Defense is good, but offense is shit. Taking a QB there would be setting him up to fail. The idea that they might draft OL and offensive skill guys is not preposterous. Then if Jones still sucks, and he might, make your move for the QB in a year or two.

Look at some case studies.

Chicago- Fields failed badly going to a really bad roster.

49ers- Unheralded Purdy succeeds going to a stacked roster

Jacksonville- Trevor Lawrence was the last best prospect since Andrew Luck. He’s coming along, but it’s been kind of a slog. He hasn’t exactly lit the NFL on fire and the Jags are still trying to complete the roster build around him.

An example to the contrary (to not be accused of cherry-picking) would be CJ Stroud in Houston. They did some nice things, but nobody thought their roster was ready to make the jump they did. So both approaches have validity. And that’s my point. There is more than one way to skin a cat and forgoing the QB when your roster sucks for more picks and building up your talent is a perfectly legitimate philosophy.

Reads like you are trying to convince NE to pass on a QB. Management will do whatever they think will help them to keep their jobs.

Of course they want to keep their jobs. The point is there is more than one legitimate philosophy on how to do that.

[William Munny]

I think a new opinion is emerging with some teams about roster management. The school of thought says to build up a good roster first and then make moves for your quarterback, not to draft a quarterback onto a bad roster and build around him slowly. Set your eventual guy up for success and not for failure.

Sure, you can draft a guy with the plan of not starting him until both he and the roster are ready, but if the team flounders there suddenly becomes a lot of pressure to put the new guy in. And if the bridge starter guy gets hurt, then your hand gets forced.

I’m not saying all teams believe this. But I think some do and it makes sense. With regards to New York, that’s a pretty shitty offensive roster. Defense is good, but offense is shit. Taking a QB there would be setting him up to fail. The idea that they might draft OL and offensive skill guys is not preposterous. Then if Jones still sucks, and he might, make your move for the QB in a year or two.

Look at some case studies.

Chicago- Fields failed badly going to a really bad roster.

49ers- Unheralded Purdy succeeds going to a stacked roster

Jacksonville- Trevor Lawrence was the last best prospect since Andrew Luck. He’s coming along, but it’s been kind of a slog. He hasn’t exactly lit the NFL on fire and the Jags are still trying to complete the roster build around him.

An example to the contrary (to not be accused of cherry-picking) would be CJ Stroud in Houston. They did some nice things, but nobody thought their roster was ready to make the jump they did. So both approaches have validity. And that’s my point. There is more than one way to skin a cat and forgoing the QB when your roster sucks for more picks and building up your talent is a perfectly legitimate philosophy.

Reads like you are trying to convince NE to pass on a QB. Management will do whatever they think will help them to keep their jobs.

Of course they want to keep their jobs. The point is there is more than one legitimate philosophy on how to do that.

Green Bay has had the right formula for building and maintaining a team for 3 decades.

[Beef Supreme]

Reads like you are trying to convince NE to pass on a QB. Management will do whatever they think will help them to keep their jobs.

Of course they want to keep their jobs. The point is there is more than one legitimate philosophy on how to do that.

Green Bay has had the right formula for building and maintaining a team for 3 decades.

“A” right formula. There is more than one way to do it.

[witljon]

I think a new opinion is emerging with some teams about roster management. The school of thought says to build up a good roster first and then make moves for your quarterback, not to draft a quarterback onto a bad roster and build around him slowly. Set your eventual guy up for success and not for failure.

Sure, you can draft a guy with the plan of not starting him until both he and the roster are ready, but if the team flounders there suddenly becomes a lot of pressure to put the new guy in. And if the bridge starter guy gets hurt, then your hand gets forced.

I’m not saying all teams believe this. But I think some do and it makes sense. With regards to New York, that’s a pretty shitty offensive roster. Defense is good, but offense is shit. Taking a QB there would be setting him up to fail. The idea that they might draft OL and offensive skill guys is not preposterous. Then if Jones still sucks, and he might, make your move for the QB in a year or two.

Look at some case studies.

Chicago- Fields failed badly going to a really bad roster.

49ers- Unheralded Purdy succeeds going to a stacked roster

Jacksonville- Trevor Lawrence was the last best prospect since Andrew Luck. He’s coming along, but it’s been kind of a slog. He hasn’t exactly lit the NFL on fire and the Jags are still trying to complete the roster build around him.

An example to the contrary (to not be accused of cherry-picking) would be CJ Stroud in Houston. They did some nice things, but nobody thought their roster was ready to make the jump they did. So both approaches have validity. And that’s my point. There is more than one way to skin a cat and forgoing the QB when your roster sucks for more picks and building up your talent is a perfectly legitimate philosophy.

Reads like you are trying to convince NE to pass on a QB. Management will do whatever they think will help them to keep their jobs.

The Patriots will not pass on the golden opportunity to land a franchise quarterback.

[-VikingsTw-]

I think a new opinion is emerging with some teams about roster management. The school of thought says to build up a good roster first and then make moves for your quarterback, not to draft a quarterback onto a bad roster and build around him slowly. Set your eventual guy up for success and not for failure.

Sure, you can draft a guy with the plan of not starting him until both he and the roster are ready, but if the team flounders there suddenly becomes a lot of pressure to put the new guy in. And if the bridge starter guy gets hurt, then your hand gets forced.

I’m not saying all teams believe this. But I think some do and it makes sense. With regards to New York, that’s a pretty shitty offensive roster. Defense is good, but offense is shit. Taking a QB there would be setting him up to fail. The idea that they might draft OL and offensive skill guys is not preposterous. Then if Jones still sucks, and he might, make your move for the QB in a year or two.

Look at some case studies.

Chicago- Fields failed badly going to a really bad roster.

49ers- Unheralded Purdy succeeds going to a stacked roster

Jacksonville- Trevor Lawrence was the last best prospect since Andrew Luck. He’s coming along, but it’s been kind of a slog. He hasn’t exactly lit the NFL on fire and the Jags are still trying to complete the roster build around him.

An example to the contrary (to not be accused of cherry-picking) would be CJ Stroud in Houston. They did some nice things, but nobody thought their roster was ready to make the jump they did. So both approaches have validity. And that’s my point. There is more than one way to skin a cat and forgoing the QB when your roster sucks for more picks and building up your talent is a perfectly legitimate philosophy.

It makes a lot of sense for a new coaching staff with a leash and patient enough owners.

I'm probably still taking the QB if you feel really good about the guy. Because next year in Free Agency you might get the WR if you have a QB in the wings. The Patriots situation is a prime example.

It's a tough call, when a team is waiving three first rounders at you and your a new regime with time to build it's also very tempting.

[Beef Supreme]

I think a new opinion is emerging with some teams about roster management. The school of thought says to build up a good roster first and then make moves for your quarterback, not to draft a quarterback onto a bad roster and build around him slowly. Set your eventual guy up for success and not for failure.

Sure, you can draft a guy with the plan of not starting him until both he and the roster are ready, but if the team flounders there suddenly becomes a lot of pressure to put the new guy in. And if the bridge starter guy gets hurt, then your hand gets forced.

I’m not saying all teams believe this. But I think some do and it makes sense. With regards to New York, that’s a pretty shitty offensive roster. Defense is good, but offense is shit. Taking a QB there would be setting him up to fail. The idea that they might draft OL and offensive skill guys is not preposterous. Then if Jones still sucks, and he might, make your move for the QB in a year or two.

Look at some case studies.

Chicago- Fields failed badly going to a really bad roster.

49ers- Unheralded Purdy succeeds going to a stacked roster

Jacksonville- Trevor Lawrence was the last best prospect since Andrew Luck. He’s coming along, but it’s been kind of a slog. He hasn’t exactly lit the NFL on fire and the Jags are still trying to complete the roster build around him.

An example to the contrary (to not be accused of cherry-picking) would be CJ Stroud in Houston. They did some nice things, but nobody thought their roster was ready to make the jump they did. So both approaches have validity. And that’s my point. There is more than one way to skin a cat and forgoing the QB when your roster sucks for more picks and building up your talent is a perfectly legitimate philosophy.

It makes a lot of sense for a new coaching staff with a leash and patient enough owners.

I'm probably still taking the QB if you feel really good about the guy. Because next year in Free Agency you might get the WR if you have a QB in the wings. The Patriots situation is a prime example.

It's a tough call, when a team is waiving three first rounders at you and your a new regime with time to build it's also very tempting.

High level FA WRs seldom hit free agency. Trade, sure. But seldom free agency.

And again, the point is not that building the roster first is the right way to do it and that teams should do it. It’s just that choosing that way is legitimately a viable way to build a successful team. It’s a legitimate approach that some teams and GMs will take. Not all of them. But there are a lot of indications that New England might be one of them. Robert Kraft flat-out said so himself.

[-VikingsTw-]

I think a new opinion is emerging with some teams about roster management. The school of thought says to build up a good roster first and then make moves for your quarterback, not to draft a quarterback onto a bad roster and build around him slowly. Set your eventual guy up for success and not for failure.

Sure, you can draft a guy with the plan of not starting him until both he and the roster are ready, but if the team flounders there suddenly becomes a lot of pressure to put the new guy in. And if the bridge starter guy gets hurt, then your hand gets forced.

I’m not saying all teams believe this. But I think some do and it makes sense. With regards to New York, that’s a pretty shitty offensive roster. Defense is good, but offense is shit. Taking a QB there would be setting him up to fail. The idea that they might draft OL and offensive skill guys is not preposterous. Then if Jones still sucks, and he might, make your move for the QB in a year or two.

Look at some case studies.

Chicago- Fields failed badly going to a really bad roster.

49ers- Unheralded Purdy succeeds going to a stacked roster

Jacksonville- Trevor Lawrence was the last best prospect since Andrew Luck. He’s coming along, but it’s been kind of a slog. He hasn’t exactly lit the NFL on fire and the Jags are still trying to complete the roster build around him.

An example to the contrary (to not be accused of cherry-picking) would be CJ Stroud in Houston. They did some nice things, but nobody thought their roster was ready to make the jump they did. So both approaches have validity. And that’s my point. There is more than one way to skin a cat and forgoing the QB when your roster sucks for more picks and building up your talent is a perfectly legitimate philosophy.

Reads like you are trying to convince NE to pass on a QB. Management will do whatever they think will help them to keep their jobs.

The Patriots will not pass on the golden opportunity to land a franchise quarterback.

I think a bunch of it depends on Bo Nix and Penix. If your NE your still only dropping to 11 ahead of two of the QB needy teams.

If you really like one of those guys, plus 23 plus someone's 1st next year you make that trade.

That's what I'm juggling with when it comes to giving up all these picks. Is JJ and Maye better than Penix/Nix plus keeping the draft picks?

It all comes down to how much you like a guy.

[-VikingsTw-]

High level FA WRs seldom hit free agency. Trade, sure. But seldom free agency.

And again, the point is not that building the roster first is the right way to do it and that teams should do it. It’s just that choosing that way is legitimately a viable way to build a successful team. It’s a legitimate approach that some teams and GMs will take. Not all of them. But there are a lot of indications that New England might be one of them. Robert Kraft flat-out said so himself.

Yes he has, for whoever is desperate enough. Which means a sh*t load of really good draft picks.

[Beef Supreme]

High level FA WRs seldom hit free agency. Trade, sure. But seldom free agency.

And again, the point is not that building the roster first is the right way to do it and that teams should do it. It’s just that choosing that way is legitimately a viable way to build a successful team. It’s a legitimate approach that some teams and GMs will take. Not all of them. But there are a lot of indications that New England might be one of them. Robert Kraft flat-out said so himself.

Yes he has, for whoever is desperate enough. Which means a sh*t load of really good draft picks.

Desperate is a characterization he’d love to assign to his trade partner (if he consummates one) to make it sound like he won the deal and is also a word he’s throwing out now to drive up the price.

If anything happens, we’ll see how the negotiation plays out whether or not a team trading with him presents as desperate or not.

[-VikingsTw-]

WR's do get traded frequently so it would be an option for NE with all the draft capital. Tee Higgins or something but I think WR would have to agree to the trade to some extent. Cause NE's not gonna give up a 1st rounder without him agreeing to a contract extension.

[-VikingsTw-]

High level FA WRs seldom hit free agency. Trade, sure. But seldom free agency.

And again, the point is not that building the roster first is the right way to do it and that teams should do it. It’s just that choosing that way is legitimately a viable way to build a successful team. It’s a legitimate approach that some teams and GMs will take. Not all of them. But there are a lot of indications that New England might be one of them. Robert Kraft flat-out said so himself.

Yes he has, for whoever is desperate enough. Which means a sh*t load of really good draft picks.

Desperate is a characterization he’d love to assign to his trade partner (if he consummates one) to make it sound like he won the deal and is also a word he’s throwing out now to drive up the price.

If anything happens, we’ll see how the negotiation plays out whether or not a team trading with him presents as desperate or not.

Depends on how much they like the QB that's there. If they don't it could be a bluff and they actually want out of 3.

It could be a big difference between Daniels and Maye.

[William Munny]

Of course they want to keep their jobs. The point is there is more than one legitimate philosophy on how to do that.

Green Bay has had the right formula for building and maintaining a team for 3 decades.

“A” right formula. There is more than one way to do it.

"The" formula that has worked for millennia. People today want to win now, take short cuts and/or make rash decisions.

[Beef Supreme]

Here’s a Patriots-centric analysis about the wisdom of taking a QB at 3 for that team. It’s opinion and reasonable minds can disagree. Again the point only being that this is a legitimate path to build a team; among other legitimate paths. Make the right moves and a number of different ways can work.

https://www.nbcsportsboston.com/nfl/new ... sk/597821/

Patriots need to study their history; a top-3 QB won't be a savior

The Patriots don't have the infrastructure to take on a rookie QB, regardless of his talent.
By Tom E. Curran, Patriots Insider • Published March 24, 2024 • Updated on March 24, 2024 at 11:35 am

Hello, Bad Team With a Top-5 Pick in the NFL Draft.

A note of caution. Unless the quarterback you’re selecting has the last name “Manning,” you’re not taking a player who will bring you a championship.

Since 1998, 36 quarterbacks have been drafted in the top five. Only Peyton (1999, No. 1) and Eli (2004, No. 1) won Super Bowls with the team that drafted them.

Only seven -- the Mannings, Joe Burrow, Jared Goff, Cam Newton, Matt Ryan and Donovan McNabb -- have even gotten to the Super Bowl with their original team,.(Matthew Stafford went and won with the Rams after being traded by the Lions.) And only two players of the 36 quarterbacks selected even won a conference championship if they weren’t the No. 1 overall pick: Ryan (2008, No. 3) and McNabb (1999, No. 2).

To put an even finer point on it, one guy since the turn of the century has been drafted in the top five and won a Super Bowl (Eli). One guy taken in the top five who wasn’t the No. 1 overall pick has even made it to the Super Bowl (Ryan).

I don’t know if that proves anything relative to this year’s draft, where Caleb Williams, Jayden Daniels, Drake Maye and J.J. McCarthy all might go in the top five. But what it indicates is that – aside from the presumed No. 1 overall pick Williams – the other three have a snowball’s chance in hell of even getting their sad-sack team to a Super Bowl.

Is there another position to take in the top five that makes it more likely to win a title? Not really. Teams in the top five stink. When you’re that bad, no single guy on a 53-man roster is going to wander in and be your savior. This isn’t the NBA.

You won’t get better until the team gets better. And the team won’t get better until it gets the right combination of talent, coaching, development, scheme, luck, chemistry and purpose. It’s all situation, and a very, very talented quarterback isn’t going to single-handedly improve the situation. To generalize, the 36 quarterbacks taken in the top five stunk a lot less than the situations they were drafted into.

The quarterback can – individually – be really good. Even great. But he will almost never improve the situation enough to give you the ultimate payoff. And in a region where the team has realized the ultimate payoff six times, that seems to be the expectation.

That the Patriots need to find the guy at the top of the draft who will deliver them back to the Super Bowl every other year and win a few. Not to get back to .500. Not to become a playoff team or rejoin the elite.

There’s a notion the Patriots are sitting pretty at No. 3 and only an idiot would back away from that lottery ticket.

Sorry. Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks don’t live in the top three of the draft.

In fact, the Patriots have a much better shot at winning a Super Bowl with a guy taken outside of the top five than inside.

Let’s just list ‘em: Roethlisberger. Rodgers. Wilson. Flacco. Brady. Mahomes. Brees. Foles, fer crissake. All taken outside of the top five, some not even in the first round. Simply getting to the Super Bowl? Outside the top five has as good a chance as all those top-3 picks as evidenced by the lineup of Purdy, Hurts, Garoppolo, Delhomme, and Kaepernick. Throw in Rex friggin’ Grossman for the hell of it.

But all those guys had good teams!! Sam Darnold, Sam Bradford, Baker Mayfield, JaMarcus Russell, all those guys … you can’t use them as examples!!

Yes. Yes, you can. Because the “Well, that was a bad team, what do you expect” defense doesn’t fly. Good – or even pretty great – quarterbacks can only do so much if the team around them is poorly coached, poorly staffed or both.

Look at the current NFL hierarchy. The best teams don’t have top-5 draft picks. And the quarterbacks who’ve played the best, generally, are not top-five picks.

I did a deep dive on the quarterbacks taken with the first 50 picks since 2017 and threw in some strays. I looked at 32 of them and compared their Approximate Value (AV) as given by the site Pro Football Reference. AV isn’t foolproof. Neither is QBR or QB Rating. But it does give what I’ve found to be a really reliable read on how effective a player was in a given season.

Here’s how the quarterbacks taken since 2017 stack up in average AV.

The Top Tier
Quarterbacks drafted since 2017, ranked by Pro Football Reference's Approximate Value metric:
Table with 5 columns and 11 rows.
Player Draft Pos. AV Avg. AV High AV High Yr.
1 Patrick Mahomes 10 15.6 22 2018
2 Lamar Jackson 32 15.5 25 2019
3 Josh Allen 7 15.3 20 2023
4 Jalen Hurts 53 15.0 20 2022
5 Justin Herbert 6 14.0 18 2021
6 CJ Stroud 2 14.0 14 2023
7 Kyler Murray 1 12.0 16 2020, 21
8 Brock Purdy 262 12.0 18 2023
9 Joe Burrow 1 11.7 17 2022
10 Justin Fields 11 11.3 16 2022
11 Trevor Lawrence 1 11.3 14 2022, 23
Source: Pro Football ReferenceGet the dataCreated with Datawrapper

OK, why is Joe Burrow barely ahead of Justin Fields? Games played. In two different seasons, Burrow’s played just 10 games because of injury. Availability is a factor.

Notice, the best teams in the league don't have top-5 draft picks. Even the Bills, who took Josh Allen seventh in 2018, were a playoff team they year before he was drafted.

Four of the top five - Jackson, Allen, Mahomes and Hurts - went to good and/or stable teams. The other – Justin Herbert – had an offense stocked with talented skill position players like Austin Ekeler, Keenan Allen and Mike Williams.

The bottom portion of the top 10 is 6-6 in the playoffs. Five of the wins are from Burrow.

Here’s the next tier.

The Middle Tier
Quarterbacks drafted since 2017, ranked by Pro Football Reference's Approximate Value metric:
Table with 6 columns and 11 rows.
Rank Player Draft Pos. AV Avg. AV High AV High Yr.
12 Deshaun Watson 12 10.5 16 2018, 19, 20
13 Tua Tagovailoa 5 10.0 16 2023
14 Daniel Jones 6 8.0 15 2022
14 Mac Jones 15 8.0 14 2021
14 Baker Mayfield 1 8.0 14 2020
17 Kenny Pickett 20 6.5 7 2022
18 Will Levis 33 6.0 6 2023
19 Jordan Love 26 6.0 15 2023
19 Gardner Minshew 178 6.0 10 2019, 23
19 Bryce Young 1 6.0 6 2023
19 Mitch Trubisky 2 6.0 13 2018


Everybody in there has some kind of reason for not playing to his draft status. In hindsight, maybe some were over-drafted. Or – OR – their franchise was too effed up to give them the proper structure and support.

Here’s the rest.

The Bottom Tier
Quarterbacks drafted since 2017, ranked by Pro Football Reference's Approximate Value metric:
Table with 6 columns and 10 rows.
Rank Player Draft Pos. AV Avg. AV High AV High Yr.
23 Sam Darnold 2 4.6 7 2018
24 Zach Wilson 2 4.3 5 2021, 23
25 Drew Lock 42 3.6 6 2020
26 DeShone Kizer 52 3.0 5 2017
26 Anthony Richardson 4 3.0 3 2023
28 Dwayne Haskins 15 2.0 3 2019
29 Jarrett Stidham 133 1.5 3 2022
30 Trey Lance 3 1.3 3 2021
31 Josh Rosen 10 1.0 2 2018
32 Bailey Zappe 137 1.0 2 2023

So, please note. Six of the top 16 are taken 11 or later. Six top-5 picks are between 19-32. Four top-5 picks are in Top 10. Four top-5 picks are in the final tier. Three guys taken 32 or later are in the top tier.

What’s all this tell us? That nothing – not arm strength, intangibles, studiousness, size or dual-threat capability – matters more than situation. Which, on one hand, seems self-evident. Quarterbacks who go to good teams succeed at a higher rate than quarterbacks who go to bad teams.

On the other, it seems to me that teams are missing the point. Which is, if you’re really bad, you’re better off improving the vital, non-QB parts of the roster (offensive line, wide receiver, corner, edge rusher) than you are being wowed because some guy fits the suit.

The Patriots sit at No. 3. It seems like Drake Maye will be on the board when the Patriots pick. So will J.J. McCarthy. Does that mean either of them are destined to be, say, Blake Bortles (No. 3, Jacksonville in 2014) because they happen to sit in the same draft spot?

Of course not. This is less about Maye and McCarthy than it is about the Patriots. After whiffing on wideout and left tackle in free agency, they are still – on paper – the worst offense in the league. They have a new offensive coordinator, a new offensive line coach, a journeyman starting quarterback, a tight end coming off an ACL injury and wideouts who would mostly be hard-pressed to start for any other team in the league.

The draft is stocked, stinking to high heaven, packed to the gills and lousy with offensive tackles and wide receivers.

The Patriots can stay put at three and take their Bortles/Darnold/Trubisky or (if they are lucky) Herbert. Or they can trade down, add first-rounders to spend on OT and wideout, have more picks to ensure first-round mobility next year and ride with Jacoby Brissett and whatever else falls off the journeyman quarterback tree this year.

It’s inadvisable to draft a project quarterback onto a team in disarray. And the Patriots have been that since January of 2022. If they take a quarterback at No. 3, he won’t fix them. But the chance exists, they could break him.

It’s not a matter of softness. It’s a matter of confidence. Both self-confidence and the belief of his coaching staff and teammates. Mac Jones lost his coaches’ confidence first, it seemed. Then he lost his. Then he lost his teammates'. Now he’s gone.

Life would be easier for de facto GM Eliot Wolf if he just took the quarterback. Maye was billed as 1A to Caleb Williams’ 1 since last summer. It’s the most important position in the sport. Maye’s good. Everyone thinks so. Pull the trigger. Simple.

The hard thing to do is trade down. To go against “conventional wisdom.” To do all the work and say, “Nah. Not good enough. We can do better.” To trust your scouting staff to find the wideout and the tackle and the coaching staff to develop who you give them.

It’s easy to take the quarterback and then, when he comes undone, to just shrug and say, “What was I supposed to do? He didn’t have it. We had to take the shot.”

Did you really, though? Didn’t you ever look at what the returns were for everyone not named Manning who got taken in the top three?

This is just a guys analysis/opinion and there are a lot of different conclusions you can draw from this info (including that we should roll with Darnold!). But it’s illustrative of the point that there’s reason to trade down if you’re a bad team with a high pick.

[Beef Supreme]

Green Bay has had the right formula for building and maintaining a team for 3 decades.

“A” right formula. There is more than one way to do it.

"The" formula that has worked for millennia. People today want to win now, take short cuts and/or make rash decisions.

What formula? What is the “GB quarterback” formula you’re referring to?

[Beef Supreme]

WR's do get traded frequently so it would be an option for NE with all the draft capital. Tee Higgins or something but I think WR would have to agree to the trade to some extent. Cause NE's not gonna give up a 1st rounder without him agreeing to a contract extension.

All what draft capital? Or are you referring to New England making a Higgins trade after trading back from 3 and stockpiling picks?


They don’t have any more than their standard allotment of draft picks currently.

[-VikingsTw-]

WR's do get traded frequently so it would be an option for NE with all the draft capital. Tee Higgins or something but I think WR would have to agree to the trade to some extent. Cause NE's not gonna give up a 1st rounder without him agreeing to a contract extension.

All what draft capital? Or are you referring to New England making a Higgins trade after trading back from 3 and stockpiling picks?


They don’t have any more than their standard allotment of draft picks currently.

Yea if they did a trade back or traded a future pick.

If they did a good trade back they would have gobs of draft capital. They could still take one of seven QB's people like and try to get Higgins.

Or just draft it out in a super deep class of WR's.

[-VikingsTw-]

“A” right formula. There is more than one way to do it.

"The" formula that has worked for millennia. People today want to win now, take short cuts and/or make rash decisions.

What formula? What is the “GB quarterback” formula you’re referring to?

I'm gonna take a shot in the dark here and say they take their QB way before they need him and let him develop from the sidelines for a few years.

It has it's positives and negatives... If guy is really really good 1 year is fine then you build off a rookie contract.

Love is probably already getting close to contract extension.

[Beef Supreme]

"The" formula that has worked for millennia. People today want to win now, take short cuts and/or make rash decisions.

What formula? What is the “GB quarterback” formula you’re referring to?

I'm gonna take a shot in the dark here and say they take their QB way before they need him and let him develop from the sidelines for a few years.

It has it's positives and negatives... If guy is really really good 1 year is fine then you build off a rookie contract.

Love is probably already getting close to contract extension.

Sure. And it has worked. It’s predicated on getting that first generational QB, though. So it’s worthless until you get one.


And also, for all that success (and it is success), they’ve won 2 super bowls in those 30+ years. So again, clearly there are other successful philosophies as well.

[Beef Supreme]

WR's do get traded frequently so it would be an option for NE with all the draft capital. Tee Higgins or something but I think WR would have to agree to the trade to some extent. Cause NE's not gonna give up a 1st rounder without him agreeing to a contract extension.

All what draft capital? Or are you referring to New England making a Higgins trade after trading back from 3 and stockpiling picks?


They don’t have any more than their standard allotment of draft picks currently.

Yea if they did a trade back or traded a future pick.

If they did a good trade back they would have gobs of draft capital. They could still take one of seven QB's people like and try to get Higgins.

Or just draft it out in a super deep class of WR's.

Right.


So there are multiple ways to do this. That’s my point. I’m just countering folks who say there’s no chance they trade out of a slot to take Maye. I don’t think it’s that simple.

[Butch Bradford]

Will Dallas "mortgage the farm," trade up and draft a "franchise QB?"

[William Munny]

“A” right formula. There is more than one way to do it.

"The" formula that has worked for millennia. People today want to win now, take short cuts and/or make rash decisions.

What formula? What is the “GB quarterback” formula you’re referring to?

I did not say anything about "GB quarterback formula." I said "the" formula that has worked to build teams for decades. That being to mostly build through the draft, draft a QB and give them time to develop, draft BPA in many circumstances, do not over-pay for positions such as WR, spend to keep players with value, but also know when to let them go.

[William Munny]

Will Dallas "mortgage the farm," trade up and draft a "franchise QB?"

Dallas could very well be looking for a QB in the draft. They along with Seattle and New Orleans are possibilities to draft a QB.

[Beef Supreme]

"The" formula that has worked for millennia. People today want to win now, take short cuts and/or make rash decisions.

What formula? What is the “GB quarterback” formula you’re referring to?

I did not say anything about "GB quarterback formula." I said "the" formula that has worked to build teams for decades. That being to mostly build through the draft, draft a QB and give them time to develop, draft BPA in many circumstances, do not over-pay for positions such as WR, spend to keep players with value, but also know when to let them go.

Yes. That is "A" formula. It's worked pretty well for GB.

[Style]

Detroit and San Francisco are making a legitimate case about the overall roster importance. I’ve definitely texted with my buddies about the Vikes going non-QB at 11 and 23.

Even more impressive for the 49ers is they took a big swing on Lance and whiffed, yet lived to tell about it.