Line drawn for trade values

[SKOLMN]

Trade value isn’t solely dependent on the picks, it also depends on how convinced you are of the player you’re trading up for. If koc fully believes in maye succeeding then next years 1st round pick/lack thereof will be irrelevant 5 years from now. If you’re convinced you have your qb do whatever it takes to get him

[Oriole81]

Trade value isn’t solely dependent on the picks, it also depends on how convinced you are of the player you’re trading up for. If koc fully believes in maye succeeding then next years 1st round pick/lack thereof will be irrelevant 5 years from now. If you’re convinced you have your qb do whatever it takes to get him

In the grand scheme it doesn't matter if your guy becomes a stud, but what does matter in the short term at least, is the process of how you got to that decision and how it compares to how other team's find their franchise QBs.

What we do know is that most successful organizations have not had to trade 3 first round picks to find their guy. In fact, most are not close to that.

So why is Kwesi, a guy that is still new to the GM game and who's track record is "incomplete" to put it nicely, thinking of doing it?

That is a question that is definitely fair to ask.

[SKOLMN]

Trade value isn’t solely dependent on the picks, it also depends on how convinced you are of the player you’re trading up for. If koc fully believes in maye succeeding then next years 1st round pick/lack thereof will be irrelevant 5 years from now. If you’re convinced you have your qb do whatever it takes to get him

In the grand scheme it doesn't matter if your guy becomes a stud, but what does matter in the short term at least, is the process of how you got to that decision and how it compares to how other team's find their franchise QBs.

What we do know is that most successful organizations have not had to trade 3 first round picks to find their guy. In fact, most are not close to that.

So why is Kwesi, a guy that is still new to the GM game and who's track record is "incomplete" to put it nicely, thinking of doing it?

That is a question that is definitely fair to ask.

Dont concern yourself with what other teams are doing, that has nothing to do with the Vikings. There is no correct way when it comes to identifying a franchise qb, you take the path you believe you have to in order to get one. The bills traded up to draft Josh Allen while the eagles waited until the 2nd round to draft Jalen hurts. Two different paths for two teams to get their franchise qb. Trading draft picks has no impact on the development of a player

[Oriole81]

Trade value isn’t solely dependent on the picks, it also depends on how convinced you are of the player you’re trading up for. If koc fully believes in maye succeeding then next years 1st round pick/lack thereof will be irrelevant 5 years from now. If you’re convinced you have your qb do whatever it takes to get him

In the grand scheme it doesn't matter if your guy becomes a stud, but what does matter in the short term at least, is the process of how you got to that decision and how it compares to how other team's find their franchise QBs.

What we do know is that most successful organizations have not had to trade 3 first round picks to find their guy. In fact, most are not close to that.

So why is Kwesi, a guy that is still new to the GM game and who's track record is "incomplete" to put it nicely, thinking of doing it?

That is a question that is definitely fair to ask.

Dont concern yourself with what other teams are doing, that has nothing to do with the Vikings. There is no correct way when it comes to identifying a franchise qb, you take the path you believe you have to in order to get one. The bills traded up to draft Josh Allen while the eagles waited until the 2nd round to draft Jalen hurts. Two different paths for two teams to get their franchise qb. Trading draft picks has no impact on the development of a player

Value is value across the board. All that stuff does matter.
Josh Allen only cost his team two 2nd rd picks in their trade up even though they too telegraphed that they wanted a QB.
Jalen Hurts worked for the Eagles immediately after them making Carson Wentz into an MVP candidate on his rookie deal, and crafting an offense to have Nick Foles win a SB.

It's important because it brings to light the fact that QBs dont succeed in a vacuum, it's actually far more about other variables like the quality of the organization they land in and that team's ability to coach and develop.

It's not like we haven't had opportunities.
We could have drafted Sam Howell or Brock Purdy in 2022 but didn't.
We could have drafted Will Levis for free last year.
We will most likely have our choice of Penix/Nix/Rattler for free this year.

It's not trade 3 first round picks or we're out in the cold.
Every other opportunity matters, and quality organizations take advantage of those opportunities.
If you are in charge for 3 drafts and you find that the only solution for filling your QB of the future is to trade 3 first round picks to just move up 5-6 spots, then its absolutely fair to criticize the efficacy of your process.

[mlhouse]

In the grand scheme it doesn't matter if your guy becomes a stud, but what does matter in the short term at least, is the process of how you got to that decision and how it compares to how other team's find their franchise QBs.

What we do know is that most successful organizations have not had to trade 3 first round picks to find their guy. In fact, most are not close to that.

So why is Kwesi, a guy that is still new to the GM game and who's track record is "incomplete" to put it nicely, thinking of doing it?

That is a question that is definitely fair to ask.

Dont concern yourself with what other teams are doing, that has nothing to do with the Vikings. There is no correct way when it comes to identifying a franchise qb, you take the path you believe you have to in order to get one. The bills traded up to draft Josh Allen while the eagles waited until the 2nd round to draft Jalen hurts. Two different paths for two teams to get their franchise qb. Trading draft picks has no impact on the development of a player

Value is value across the board. All that stuff does matter.
Josh Allen only cost his team two 2nd rd picks in their trade up even though they too telegraphed that they wanted a QB.
Jalen Hurts worked for the Eagles immediately after them making Carson Wentz into an MVP candidate on his rookie deal, and crafting an offense to have Nick Foles win a SB.

It's important because it brings to light the fact that QBs dont succeed in a vacuum, it's actually far more about other variables like the quality of the organization they land in and that team's ability to coach and develop.

It's not like we haven't had opportunities.
We could have drafted Sam Howell or Brock Purdy in 2022 but didn't.
We could have drafted Will Levis for free last year.
We will most likely have our choice of Penix/Nix/Rattler for free this year.

It's not trade 3 first round picks or we're out in the cold.
Every other opportunity matters, and quality organizations take advantage of those opportunities.
If you are in charge for 3 drafts and you find that the only solution for filling your QB of the future is to trade 3 first round picks to just move up 5-6 spots, then its absolutely fair to criticize the efficacy of your process.

While I am not a fan of trading up and mortgaging, sometimes you have to. While you can cherry pick all of these Brock Purdy issues or even Jalen Hurts all you want, that is what you are doing. Cherry picking. And while organization has perhaps a lot to do with it, talent of the individual player also does too.

PLus, I don't know what you are talking about this "for free" comment. Do you mean without trading?

If I can draft one of the 4 players I think can be a franchise QB, I am doing that.

I think Penix is outside of that group, but I would consider taking him later in the first, early in the 2nd.

If these cannot be drafted, and there is a good chance that is the case (we might not be able to get into position to take any of them), then rather than take a Bo Nix, Spencer Rattler, or even Michael Penix, lets roll with Sam Darnold.

[Oriole81]

Dont concern yourself with what other teams are doing, that has nothing to do with the Vikings. There is no correct way when it comes to identifying a franchise qb, you take the path you believe you have to in order to get one. The bills traded up to draft Josh Allen while the eagles waited until the 2nd round to draft Jalen hurts. Two different paths for two teams to get their franchise qb. Trading draft picks has no impact on the development of a player

Value is value across the board. All that stuff does matter.
Josh Allen only cost his team two 2nd rd picks in their trade up even though they too telegraphed that they wanted a QB.
Jalen Hurts worked for the Eagles immediately after them making Carson Wentz into an MVP candidate on his rookie deal, and crafting an offense to have Nick Foles win a SB.

It's important because it brings to light the fact that QBs dont succeed in a vacuum, it's actually far more about other variables like the quality of the organization they land in and that team's ability to coach and develop.

It's not like we haven't had opportunities.
We could have drafted Sam Howell or Brock Purdy in 2022 but didn't.
We could have drafted Will Levis for free last year.
We will most likely have our choice of Penix/Nix/Rattler for free this year.

It's not trade 3 first round picks or we're out in the cold.
Every other opportunity matters, and quality organizations take advantage of those opportunities.
If you are in charge for 3 drafts and you find that the only solution for filling your QB of the future is to trade 3 first round picks to just move up 5-6 spots, then its absolutely fair to criticize the efficacy of your process.

While I am not a fan of trading up and mortgaging, sometimes you have to. While you can cherry pick all of these Brock Purdy issues or even Jalen Hurts all you want, that is what you are doing. Cherry picking. And while organization has perhaps a lot to do with it, talent of the individual player also does too.

PLus, I don't know what you are talking about this "for free" comment. Do you mean without trading?

If I can draft one of the 4 players I think can be a franchise QB, I am doing that.

I think Penix is outside of that group, but I would consider taking him later in the first, early in the 2nd.

If these cannot be drafted, and there is a good chance that is the case (we might not be able to get into position to take any of them), then rather than take a Bo Nix, Spencer Rattler, or even Michael Penix, lets roll with Sam Darnold.

I'm merely trying to frame this in an economic sense.
If it gets us a legit Top 5 franchise QB, then the price is never too high. But it's also important to bring up that as of right now, we're paying at the top of the market compared to other teams if we trade three first round picks.

Guys like Penix, Levis and Nix have warts for example (the guys you could get for "free" as in not having to heavily trade up), but so did comparable guys like Lamar, Hurts, Love that were all drafted in that similar area.
The beauty of the Mahomes pick was that they had the vision of what he could be with their development, while the rest of the top of the draft didn't, and it became more cost effective for them because they only had to trade up to 10.

That stuff matters is my point. Teams that are capable of identifying and developing QBs have such a huge advantage.
Rolling with Darnold would also count in this case as it would be a cost effective approach, and one that relies on a quality organization knowing what they're doing regarding identifying a skill set and then crafting an offense around it.

So I'm not opposed to doing a big trade up, but I just then have higher expectations for if we did, because many teams are making it work with less.

[SKOLMN]

In the grand scheme it doesn't matter if your guy becomes a stud, but what does matter in the short term at least, is the process of how you got to that decision and how it compares to how other team's find their franchise QBs.

What we do know is that most successful organizations have not had to trade 3 first round picks to find their guy. In fact, most are not close to that.

So why is Kwesi, a guy that is still new to the GM game and who's track record is "incomplete" to put it nicely, thinking of doing it?

That is a question that is definitely fair to ask.

Dont concern yourself with what other teams are doing, that has nothing to do with the Vikings. There is no correct way when it comes to identifying a franchise qb, you take the path you believe you have to in order to get one. The bills traded up to draft Josh Allen while the eagles waited until the 2nd round to draft Jalen hurts. Two different paths for two teams to get their franchise qb. Trading draft picks has no impact on the development of a player

Value is value across the board. All that stuff does matter.
Josh Allen only cost his team two 2nd rd picks in their trade up even though they too telegraphed that they wanted a QB.
Jalen Hurts worked for the Eagles immediately after them making Carson Wentz into an MVP candidate on his rookie deal, and crafting an offense to have Nick Foles win a SB.

It's important because it brings to light the fact that QBs dont succeed in a vacuum, it's actually far more about other variables like the quality of the organization they land in and that team's ability to coach and develop.

It's not like we haven't had opportunities.
We could have drafted Sam Howell or Brock Purdy in 2022 but didn't.
We could have drafted Will Levis for free last year.
We will most likely have our choice of Penix/Nix/Rattler for free this year.

It's not trade 3 first round picks or we're out in the cold.
Every other opportunity matters, and quality organizations take advantage of those opportunities.
If you are in charge for 3 drafts and you find that the only solution for filling your QB of the future is to trade 3 first round picks to just move up 5-6 spots, then its absolutely fair to criticize the efficacy of your process.

The issue with your hypothesis is your assuming the top tier of qb’s as well as the 2nd tier of qb’s all have the same probability of developing, which they don’t. The reason it costs more to draft McCarthy or maye is because they have a better chance of succeeding than Penix or nix because they’re younger, more athletically gifted, better passers, etc. The question isn’t mortgage the future for the top tier or don’t and select one from the 2nd tier and they both will have the same result. It’s either mortgage the future for a better chance of a franchise qb, or don’t and gamble on the 2nd tier with in all likelihood lower ceilings.

Throw out all your thoughts on value/future draft picks for a moment. The number one question to answer is rank the qb’s and figure out whether you believe they will succeed. From there you can figure out value. Personally I think Penix and nix will both have limited ceilings and shorter careers due to their age so keeping all our draft picks isn’t worth gambling on them, so it’s worth it to trade them for maye or McCarthy.

[Oriole81]

Dont concern yourself with what other teams are doing, that has nothing to do with the Vikings. There is no correct way when it comes to identifying a franchise qb, you take the path you believe you have to in order to get one. The bills traded up to draft Josh Allen while the eagles waited until the 2nd round to draft Jalen hurts. Two different paths for two teams to get their franchise qb. Trading draft picks has no impact on the development of a player

Value is value across the board. All that stuff does matter.
Josh Allen only cost his team two 2nd rd picks in their trade up even though they too telegraphed that they wanted a QB.
Jalen Hurts worked for the Eagles immediately after them making Carson Wentz into an MVP candidate on his rookie deal, and crafting an offense to have Nick Foles win a SB.

It's important because it brings to light the fact that QBs dont succeed in a vacuum, it's actually far more about other variables like the quality of the organization they land in and that team's ability to coach and develop.

It's not like we haven't had opportunities.
We could have drafted Sam Howell or Brock Purdy in 2022 but didn't.
We could have drafted Will Levis for free last year.
We will most likely have our choice of Penix/Nix/Rattler for free this year.

It's not trade 3 first round picks or we're out in the cold.
Every other opportunity matters, and quality organizations take advantage of those opportunities.
If you are in charge for 3 drafts and you find that the only solution for filling your QB of the future is to trade 3 first round picks to just move up 5-6 spots, then its absolutely fair to criticize the efficacy of your process.

The issue with your hypothesis is your assuming the top tier of qb’s as well as the 2nd tier of qb’s all have the same probability of developing, which they don’t. The reason it costs more to draft McCarthy or maye is because they have a better chance of succeeding than Penix or nix because they’re younger, more athletically gifted, better passers, etc. The question isn’t mortgage the future for the top tier or don’t and select one from the 2nd tier and they both will have the same result. It’s either mortgage the future for a better chance of a franchise qb, or don’t and gamble on the 2nd tier with in all likelihood lower ceilings.

Throw out all your thoughts on value/future draft picks for a moment. The number one question to answer is rank the qb’s and figure out whether you believe they will succeed. From there you can figure out value. Personally I think Penix and nix will both have limited ceilings and shorter careers due to their age so keeping all our draft picks isn’t worth gambling on them, so it’s worth it to trade them for maye or McCarthy.

History doesn't support that guys that are drafted higher work out better.
I will add in though as well, I don't care about age. With where QB contracts are going, I think fewer and fewer teams should be interested in the 10-15 year QB, because fewer and fewer of them are worth the numbers that are getting thrown out.

If you can get a guy for a 5 year window on a cheap rookie scale, then rinse and repeat, I could be very happy with that.
But it takes a strong organization to be able to do that.

[mlhouse]

[

History doesn't support that guys that are drafted higher work out better.

False.

[Oriole81]

[

History doesn't support that guys that are drafted higher work out better.

False.

You more than anybody on here decries the fallacy of romanticizing the rookie QB, and bring up how often teams bust on highly drafted QBs.

Again, I'm not talking about Day 2 and later guys. I'm talking about first round picks here still.
I'm not trying to make the case for Spencer Rattler or Michael Pratt.

[mlhouse]

[

History doesn't support that guys that are drafted higher work out better.

False.

You more than anybody on here decries the fallacy of romanticizing the rookie QB, and bring up how often teams bust on highly drafted QBs.

Again, I'm not talking about Day 2 and later guys. I'm talking about first round picks here still.
I'm not trying to make the case for Spencer Rattler or Michael Pratt.

But it doesn't make the claim about higher drafted players no working out better.

I created a database of NFL draft picks for the past 20 or so years. I included the "weighted average value" of each of the players.

The average WAV of the first overall is 71. The WAV of #2 overall is 54, the biggest one step drop (if you smooth out the values a bit) anywere. Pick 10 is in the 40-45 range. Pick 32 is in the 30's. Again, with some smoothing it declines to the 20s in the 2nd round, teens in the 3rd. And so on and so on.

If you look at positions taken in the first round, the QB position has the highest career average value. The QB position WAV starts to converge with other positions in the 2nd round. In the 3rd round and later it is no longer the top value position.

A QB selected in round 1 has a WAV of 49. In round 2 30. Round 3 13. Round 4 11. Interestingly, in round 5 (Jaren Hall) WAV=2. Round 6 8. Round 7 WAV is 4.

Now WAV is not the greatest measure because it is a career cumulative statistic. Brock Purdy might drive that WAV up a bit just himself, but then there were 61 quarterbacks chosen in round 7 in this time span.

[SKOLMN]

Value is value across the board. All that stuff does matter.
Josh Allen only cost his team two 2nd rd picks in their trade up even though they too telegraphed that they wanted a QB.
Jalen Hurts worked for the Eagles immediately after them making Carson Wentz into an MVP candidate on his rookie deal, and crafting an offense to have Nick Foles win a SB.

It's important because it brings to light the fact that QBs dont succeed in a vacuum, it's actually far more about other variables like the quality of the organization they land in and that team's ability to coach and develop.

It's not like we haven't had opportunities.
We could have drafted Sam Howell or Brock Purdy in 2022 but didn't.
We could have drafted Will Levis for free last year.
We will most likely have our choice of Penix/Nix/Rattler for free this year.

It's not trade 3 first round picks or we're out in the cold.
Every other opportunity matters, and quality organizations take advantage of those opportunities.
If you are in charge for 3 drafts and you find that the only solution for filling your QB of the future is to trade 3 first round picks to just move up 5-6 spots, then its absolutely fair to criticize the efficacy of your process.

The issue with your hypothesis is your assuming the top tier of qb’s as well as the 2nd tier of qb’s all have the same probability of developing, which they don’t. The reason it costs more to draft McCarthy or maye is because they have a better chance of succeeding than Penix or nix because they’re younger, more athletically gifted, better passers, etc. The question isn’t mortgage the future for the top tier or don’t and select one from the 2nd tier and they both will have the same result. It’s either mortgage the future for a better chance of a franchise qb, or don’t and gamble on the 2nd tier with in all likelihood lower ceilings.

Throw out all your thoughts on value/future draft picks for a moment. The number one question to answer is rank the qb’s and figure out whether you believe they will succeed. From there you can figure out value. Personally I think Penix and nix will both have limited ceilings and shorter careers due to their age so keeping all our draft picks isn’t worth gambling on them, so it’s worth it to trade them for maye or McCarthy.

History doesn't support that guys that are drafted higher work out better.
I will add in though as well, I don't care about age. With where QB contracts are going, I think fewer and fewer teams should be interested in the 10-15 year QB, because fewer and fewer of them are worth the numbers that are getting thrown out.

If you can get a guy for a 5 year window on a cheap rookie scale, then rinse and repeat, I could be very happy with that.
But it takes a strong organization to be able to do that.

It might not, but the quality of the prospect at the higher end of the draft are better than the lower end, otherwise they wouldn’t be so highly coveted. While it doesn’t necessarily guarantee they won’t bust, this fact alone gives them a better chance of panning out.

I don’t want a constant turnstile of qb’s. Getting someone in the building and keeping him there for 15 years should be the goal.

[Oriole81]

False.

You more than anybody on here decries the fallacy of romanticizing the rookie QB, and bring up how often teams bust on highly drafted QBs.

Again, I'm not talking about Day 2 and later guys. I'm talking about first round picks here still.
I'm not trying to make the case for Spencer Rattler or Michael Pratt.

But it doesn't make the claim about higher drafted players no working out better.

I created a database of NFL draft picks for the past 20 or so years. I included the "weighted average value" of each of the players.

The average WAV of the first overall is 71. The WAV of #2 overall is 54, the biggest one step drop (if you smooth out the values a bit) anywere. Pick 10 is in the 40-45 range. Pick 32 is in the 30's. Again, with some smoothing it declines to the 20s in the 2nd round, teens in the 3rd. And so on and so on.

If you look at positions taken in the first round, the QB position has the highest career average value. The QB position WAV starts to converge with other positions in the 2nd round. In the 3rd round and later it is no longer the top value position.

A QB selected in round 1 has a WAV of 49. In round 2 30. Round 3 13. Round 4 11. Interestingly, in round 5 (Jaren Hall) WAV=2. Round 6 8. Round 7 WAV is 4.

Now WAV is not the greatest measure because it is a career cumulative statistic. Brock Purdy might drive that WAV up a bit just himself, but then there were 61 quarterbacks chosen in round 7 in this time span.

I appreciate the data, but if you're lumping everything by round, it may not be the best descriptor for this specific conversation.
I'm not trying to get into the deep examples, but still staying in the mid to later parts of RD1.

The perfect example would be you said you'd be content with Penix in the back of RD1.
Since he's a RD1 QB, you would lump his success rate in the same data as all the other QBs that got picked this year.

But because you wouldn't have to take him until later in Rd1, you'd also get whoever you take at 11, the added capital you could get possibly by doing a small trade down from 23, and your 2025 1st.
Plus, perhaps you want to move off of him after his rookie contract and do a similar thing again (if you're capable), then you'd get the added $40M or so in cap space to spend elsewhere.

So is there a significant breakdown between QBs drafted in the top 5 and QBs drafted in the latter part of RD1, because that's where this discussion needs to be rooted in?

Regarding Purdy, I don't think that he as an individual has much merit so steer away from that, however I bring him up because of his team.
SF has gone from Alex Smith to Colin Kaepernick to Jimmy Garoppolo to Brock Purdy, and has not skipped a beat. They have been to 3 SBs.
That's a team that has an advantage that they've been able to extract great value out of, and that is the greater point I am trying to make.

[Oriole81]

The issue with your hypothesis is your assuming the top tier of qb’s as well as the 2nd tier of qb’s all have the same probability of developing, which they don’t. The reason it costs more to draft McCarthy or maye is because they have a better chance of succeeding than Penix or nix because they’re younger, more athletically gifted, better passers, etc. The question isn’t mortgage the future for the top tier or don’t and select one from the 2nd tier and they both will have the same result. It’s either mortgage the future for a better chance of a franchise qb, or don’t and gamble on the 2nd tier with in all likelihood lower ceilings.

Throw out all your thoughts on value/future draft picks for a moment. The number one question to answer is rank the qb’s and figure out whether you believe they will succeed. From there you can figure out value. Personally I think Penix and nix will both have limited ceilings and shorter careers due to their age so keeping all our draft picks isn’t worth gambling on them, so it’s worth it to trade them for maye or McCarthy.

History doesn't support that guys that are drafted higher work out better.
I will add in though as well, I don't care about age. With where QB contracts are going, I think fewer and fewer teams should be interested in the 10-15 year QB, because fewer and fewer of them are worth the numbers that are getting thrown out.

If you can get a guy for a 5 year window on a cheap rookie scale, then rinse and repeat, I could be very happy with that.
But it takes a strong organization to be able to do that.

It might not, but the quality of the prospect at the higher end of the draft are better than the lower end, otherwise they wouldn’t be so highly coveted. While it doesn’t necessarily guarantee they won’t bust, this fact alone gives them a better chance of panning out.

I don’t want a constant turnstile of qb’s. Getting someone in the building and keeping him there for 15 years should be the goal.

I personally disagree with that and think it just fuels the artificial inflation of these QB contracts.
At any given time, there's probably no more than 2-3 real difference makers in the league.

[mlhouse]

You more than anybody on here decries the fallacy of romanticizing the rookie QB, and bring up how often teams bust on highly drafted QBs.

Again, I'm not talking about Day 2 and later guys. I'm talking about first round picks here still.
I'm not trying to make the case for Spencer Rattler or Michael Pratt.

But it doesn't make the claim about higher drafted players no working out better.

I created a database of NFL draft picks for the past 20 or so years. I included the "weighted average value" of each of the players.

The average WAV of the first overall is 71. The WAV of #2 overall is 54, the biggest one step drop (if you smooth out the values a bit) anywere. Pick 10 is in the 40-45 range. Pick 32 is in the 30's. Again, with some smoothing it declines to the 20s in the 2nd round, teens in the 3rd. And so on and so on.

If you look at positions taken in the first round, the QB position has the highest career average value. The QB position WAV starts to converge with other positions in the 2nd round. In the 3rd round and later it is no longer the top value position.

A QB selected in round 1 has a WAV of 49. In round 2 30. Round 3 13. Round 4 11. Interestingly, in round 5 (Jaren Hall) WAV=2. Round 6 8. Round 7 WAV is 4.

Now WAV is not the greatest measure because it is a career cumulative statistic. Brock Purdy might drive that WAV up a bit just himself, but then there were 61 quarterbacks chosen in round 7 in this time span.

I appreciate the data, but if you're lumping everything by round, it may not be the best descriptor for this specific conversation.
I'm not trying to get into the deep examples, but still staying in the mid to later parts of RD1.

The perfect example would be you said you'd be content with Penix in the back of RD1.
Since he's a RD1 QB, you would lump his success rate in the same data as all the other QBs that got picked this year.

But because you wouldn't have to take him until later in Rd1, you'd also get whoever you take at 11, the added capital you could get possibly by doing a small trade down from 23, and your 2025 1st.
Plus, perhaps you want to move off of him after his rookie contract and do a similar thing again (if you're capable), then you'd get the added $40M or so in cap space to spend elsewhere.

So is there a significant breakdown between QBs drafted in the top 5 and QBs drafted in the latter part of RD1, because that's where this discussion needs to be rooted in?

Regarding Purdy, I don't think that he as an individual has much merit so steer away from that, however I bring him up because of his team.
SF has gone from Alex Smith to Colin Kaepernick to Jimmy Garoppolo to Brock Purdy, and has not skipped a beat. They have been to 3 SBs.
That's a team that has an advantage that they've been able to extract great value out of, and that is the greater point I am trying to make.

I am not really following your late round Penix logic.

[Oriole81]

But it doesn't make the claim about higher drafted players no working out better.

I created a database of NFL draft picks for the past 20 or so years. I included the "weighted average value" of each of the players.

The average WAV of the first overall is 71. The WAV of #2 overall is 54, the biggest one step drop (if you smooth out the values a bit) anywere. Pick 10 is in the 40-45 range. Pick 32 is in the 30's. Again, with some smoothing it declines to the 20s in the 2nd round, teens in the 3rd. And so on and so on.

If you look at positions taken in the first round, the QB position has the highest career average value. The QB position WAV starts to converge with other positions in the 2nd round. In the 3rd round and later it is no longer the top value position.

A QB selected in round 1 has a WAV of 49. In round 2 30. Round 3 13. Round 4 11. Interestingly, in round 5 (Jaren Hall) WAV=2. Round 6 8. Round 7 WAV is 4.

Now WAV is not the greatest measure because it is a career cumulative statistic. Brock Purdy might drive that WAV up a bit just himself, but then there were 61 quarterbacks chosen in round 7 in this time span.

I appreciate the data, but if you're lumping everything by round, it may not be the best descriptor for this specific conversation.
I'm not trying to get into the deep examples, but still staying in the mid to later parts of RD1.

The perfect example would be you said you'd be content with Penix in the back of RD1.
Since he's a RD1 QB, you would lump his success rate in the same data as all the other QBs that got picked this year.

But because you wouldn't have to take him until later in Rd1, you'd also get whoever you take at 11, the added capital you could get possibly by doing a small trade down from 23, and your 2025 1st.
Plus, perhaps you want to move off of him after his rookie contract and do a similar thing again (if you're capable), then you'd get the added $40M or so in cap space to spend elsewhere.

So is there a significant breakdown between QBs drafted in the top 5 and QBs drafted in the latter part of RD1, because that's where this discussion needs to be rooted in?

Regarding Purdy, I don't think that he as an individual has much merit so steer away from that, however I bring him up because of his team.
SF has gone from Alex Smith to Colin Kaepernick to Jimmy Garoppolo to Brock Purdy, and has not skipped a beat. They have been to 3 SBs.
That's a team that has an advantage that they've been able to extract great value out of, and that is the greater point I am trying to make.

I am not really following your late round Penix logic.

late first round, this is what you said...

I think Penix is outside of that group, but I would consider taking him later in the first, early in the 2nd.

[mlhouse]

I appreciate the data, but if you're lumping everything by round, it may not be the best descriptor for this specific conversation.
I'm not trying to get into the deep examples, but still staying in the mid to later parts of RD1.

The perfect example would be you said you'd be content with Penix in the back of RD1.
Since he's a RD1 QB, you would lump his success rate in the same data as all the other QBs that got picked this year.

But because you wouldn't have to take him until later in Rd1, you'd also get whoever you take at 11, the added capital you could get possibly by doing a small trade down from 23, and your 2025 1st.
Plus, perhaps you want to move off of him after his rookie contract and do a similar thing again (if you're capable), then you'd get the added $40M or so in cap space to spend elsewhere.

So is there a significant breakdown between QBs drafted in the top 5 and QBs drafted in the latter part of RD1, because that's where this discussion needs to be rooted in?

Regarding Purdy, I don't think that he as an individual has much merit so steer away from that, however I bring him up because of his team.
SF has gone from Alex Smith to Colin Kaepernick to Jimmy Garoppolo to Brock Purdy, and has not skipped a beat. They have been to 3 SBs.
That's a team that has an advantage that they've been able to extract great value out of, and that is the greater point I am trying to make.

I am not really following your late round Penix logic.

late first round, this is what you said...

I think Penix is outside of that group, but I would consider taking him later in the first, early in the 2nd.

But what is the point of your statement?

[Oriole81]

I am not really following your late round Penix logic.

late first round, this is what you said...

I think Penix is outside of that group, but I would consider taking him later in the first, early in the 2nd.

But what is the point of your statement?

That you think he can be a good QB.
Now it's no longer about being afraid of the guy busting, but instead about how much you're willing to pay for that little extra.

Now it's about process and economics.

[SKOLMN]

History doesn't support that guys that are drafted higher work out better.
I will add in though as well, I don't care about age. With where QB contracts are going, I think fewer and fewer teams should be interested in the 10-15 year QB, because fewer and fewer of them are worth the numbers that are getting thrown out.

If you can get a guy for a 5 year window on a cheap rookie scale, then rinse and repeat, I could be very happy with that.
But it takes a strong organization to be able to do that.

It might not, but the quality of the prospect at the higher end of the draft are better than the lower end, otherwise they wouldn’t be so highly coveted. While it doesn’t necessarily guarantee they won’t bust, this fact alone gives them a better chance of panning out.

I don’t want a constant turnstile of qb’s. Getting someone in the building and keeping him there for 15 years should be the goal.

I personally disagree with that and think it just fuels the artificial inflation of these QB contracts.
At any given time, there's probably no more than 2-3 real difference makers in the league.

The issue with qb contracts imo is a microcosm of a bigger issue of poor drafting. If a gm is constantly hitting on draft picks then paying a qb top dollar won’t be an issue because you can properly plan on a replacement for someone else you can’t afford to pay.

We berated cousins and having to pay him top dollar but that was because we had to use free agency to build a team because spielman wiffed on early picks during cousins time here like treadwell, Alexander, Bradbury, gladney, irv smith, mattison, mike hughes, dantzler, cine, and asamoah

[mlhouse]

late first round, this is what you said...

I think Penix is outside of that group, but I would consider taking him later in the first, early in the 2nd.

But what is the point of your statement?

That you think he can be a good QB.
Now it's no longer about being afraid of the guy busting, but instead about how much you're willing to pay for that little extra.

Now it's about process and economics.

It isn't a "little extra". Its a significant difference. Talent is not normally distributed. The players at each tier of talent are multiples of value better than the next lower.

And I do not think drafting Penix is our best alternative. I think trading up for JJ McCarthy is.

The only real question is, is there a price I do not pay. The answer is yes, there is a limit.

Then the follow up question is with respect to QBs what would be your backup scenario: I would consider drafting Penix at 23 or lower if I could trade down.

What if Penix is drafted between picks 11 and 23. Then I roll with Sam Darnold.

[Beetlejuice]

Trade value isn’t solely dependent on the picks, it also depends on how convinced you are of the player you’re trading up for. If koc fully believes in maye succeeding then next years 1st round pick/lack thereof will be irrelevant 5 years from now. If you’re convinced you have your qb do whatever it takes to get him

In the grand scheme it doesn't matter if your guy becomes a stud, but what does matter in the short term at least, is the process of how you got to that decision and how it compares to how other team's find their franchise QBs.

What we do know is that most successful organizations have not had to trade 3 first round picks to find their guy. In fact, most are not close to that.

So why is Kwesi, a guy that is still new to the GM game and who's track record is "incomplete" to put it nicely, thinking of doing it?

That is a question that is definitely fair to ask.

He just did a presser. He said they like multiple QBs. The biggest takeaway I got is that they won’t trade 3 first round picks just to settle for a guy. They want their guy if they do it.

[Oriole81]

It might not, but the quality of the prospect at the higher end of the draft are better than the lower end, otherwise they wouldn’t be so highly coveted. While it doesn’t necessarily guarantee they won’t bust, this fact alone gives them a better chance of panning out.

I don’t want a constant turnstile of qb’s. Getting someone in the building and keeping him there for 15 years should be the goal.

I personally disagree with that and think it just fuels the artificial inflation of these QB contracts.
At any given time, there's probably no more than 2-3 real difference makers in the league.

The issue with qb contracts imo is a microcosm of a bigger issue of poor drafting. If a gm is constantly hitting on draft picks then paying a qb top dollar won’t be an issue because you can properly plan on a replacement for someone else you can’t afford to pay.

We berated cousins and having to pay him top dollar but that was because we had to use free agency to build a team because spielman wiffed on early picks during cousins time here like treadwell, Alexander, Bradbury, gladney, irv smith, mattison, mike hughes, dantzler, cine, and asamoah

Yes and no.
There's still a monumental difference in guys like Mahomes/Brady vs guys like Dak/Cousins/Tannehill.
Even someone like Tua for instance. For all intents and purposes, Tua is a draft "success" but I still think Mia should be VERY cautious about giving him $55M or so. He's not THAT good.

If there were more QBs, especially on newer contracts, in the $35M-$40M range, then that's a sizable enough difference between the top of the heap.
But that's not the case. When a 36 year old QB with one career playoff win, coming off an achillees injury gets $100M guaranteed, there's clearly not any momentum to change this.

That means teams in that range will always be at a disadvantage and that means the margin of error for drafting becomes even more thin.

[Oriole81]

But what is the point of your statement?

That you think he can be a good QB.
Now it's no longer about being afraid of the guy busting, but instead about how much you're willing to pay for that little extra.

Now it's about process and economics.

It isn't a "little extra". Its a significant difference. Talent is not normally distributed. The players at each tier of talent are multiples of value better than the next lower.

And I do not think drafting Penix is our best alternative. I think trading up for JJ McCarthy is.

The only real question is, is there a price I do not pay. The answer is yes, there is a limit.

Then the follow up question is with respect to QBs what would be your backup scenario: I would consider drafting Penix at 23 or lower if I could trade down.

What if Penix is drafted between picks 11 and 23. Then I roll with Sam Darnold.

Would you do the same three firsts for Maye?

[mlhouse]

I personally disagree with that and think it just fuels the artificial inflation of these QB contracts.
At any given time, there's probably no more than 2-3 real difference makers in the league.

The issue with qb contracts imo is a microcosm of a bigger issue of poor drafting. If a gm is constantly hitting on draft picks then paying a qb top dollar won’t be an issue because you can properly plan on a replacement for someone else you can’t afford to pay.

We berated cousins and having to pay him top dollar but that was because we had to use free agency to build a team because spielman wiffed on early picks during cousins time here like treadwell, Alexander, Bradbury, gladney, irv smith, mattison, mike hughes, dantzler, cine, and asamoah

Yes and no.
There's still a monumental difference in guys like Mahomes/Brady vs guys like Dak/Cousins/Tannehill.
Even someone like Tua for instance. For all intents and purposes, Tua is a draft "success" but I still think Mia should be VERY cautious about giving him $55M or so. He's not THAT good.

If there were more QBs, especially on newer contracts, in the $35M-$40M range, then that's a sizable enough difference between the top of the heap.
But that's not the case. When a 36 year old QB with one career playoff win, coming off an achillees injury gets $100M guaranteed, there's clearly not any momentum to change this.

That means teams in that range will always be at a disadvantage and that means the margin of error for drafting becomes even more thin.

The problem is these players are not manufactured. There are only a 3-5 of these QBs in the league at the same time. You can occasionally win with a QB outside of this group, but those seasons are few and far between and they are virtually impossible to replicate.

I have shown the dominance in the AFC of Brady, Manning, Rothlisberger, and now Mahomes.

If you go back to 2001 (Brady's first playoff run), 21 out of the 22 AFC Championship games has involved AT LEAST one of these quarterbacks. The AFC Championship game has featured at least on of those 4 quarterbacks in the years 2003 - 2023 inclusive. In 8 of those season, BOTH of the quarterbacks were from that list. Even more concentrated, since 2001, the AFC champion in the Super Bowl has only been with three teams WITHOUT one of those 4 quarterbacks: Rich Gannon and the 2002 Oakland Raiders, Joe Flacco and the 2012 Baltimore Ravens, and Joe Burrows of the 2021 Cincinnati Bengals.

The NFC isn't as concentrated because I think the AFC had the dominant QBs of the era. But Rodgers, Eli Manning, Drew Brees, and Russell WIlson have accounted for 10 of the 30 possible starting QBs in NFC championship games. Before that period, the EAgles made the Championship with one of my favorite players Donovan McNabb 5 times betweeon 2001- 2008.

If you have a good organization and Brady, Peyton, Rothlisberger, Mahomes, Rodgers, Eli, Brees, or Russell WIlson you will have a solid chance of winning. If you don't then you might be a franchise liek the Vikings making it in 00, 09, 17, about once every 8 years.

Moving from that, I would claim that there are only two out of 32 NFL franchises that (in the modern era) that are disproportionately represented in championship games without one of these high level QBs: Philadelphia and San Fransisco. But almost all of this is represented by two coaches: Jim Harbaugh (not good enough to pass a Kwesi interview) and Kyle Shanahan. WIth Philly it was mainly Andy Reid but there was a lot of bad teams between Reid last playoff team in 2010 and their Super Bowl win in 2017 under Doug Pederson. And that 2017 team wasn't sustained until the last couple of years.

[Oriole81]

The issue with qb contracts imo is a microcosm of a bigger issue of poor drafting. If a gm is constantly hitting on draft picks then paying a qb top dollar won’t be an issue because you can properly plan on a replacement for someone else you can’t afford to pay.

We berated cousins and having to pay him top dollar but that was because we had to use free agency to build a team because spielman wiffed on early picks during cousins time here like treadwell, Alexander, Bradbury, gladney, irv smith, mattison, mike hughes, dantzler, cine, and asamoah

Yes and no.
There's still a monumental difference in guys like Mahomes/Brady vs guys like Dak/Cousins/Tannehill.
Even someone like Tua for instance. For all intents and purposes, Tua is a draft "success" but I still think Mia should be VERY cautious about giving him $55M or so. He's not THAT good.

If there were more QBs, especially on newer contracts, in the $35M-$40M range, then that's a sizable enough difference between the top of the heap.
But that's not the case. When a 36 year old QB with one career playoff win, coming off an achillees injury gets $100M guaranteed, there's clearly not any momentum to change this.

That means teams in that range will always be at a disadvantage and that means the margin of error for drafting becomes even more thin.

The problem is these players are not manufactured. There are only a 3-5 of these QBs in the league at the same time. You can occasionally win with a QB outside of this group, but those seasons are few and far between and they are virtually impossible to replicate.

I have shown the dominance in the AFC of Brady, Manning, Rothlisberger, and now Mahomes.

If you go back to 2001 (Brady's first playoff run), 21 out of the 22 AFC Championship games has involved AT LEAST one of these quarterbacks. The AFC Championship game has featured at least on of those 4 quarterbacks in the years 2003 - 2023 inclusive. In 8 of those season, BOTH of the quarterbacks were from that list. Even more concentrated, since 2001, the AFC champion in the Super Bowl has only been with three teams WITHOUT one of those 4 quarterbacks: Rich Gannon and the 2002 Oakland Raiders, Joe Flacco and the 2012 Baltimore Ravens, and Joe Burrows of the 2021 Cincinnati Bengals.

The NFC isn't as concentrated because I think the AFC had the dominant QBs of the era. But Rodgers, Eli Manning, Drew Brees, and Russell WIlson have accounted for 10 of the 30 possible starting QBs in NFC championship games. Before that period, the EAgles made the Championship with one of my favorite players Donovan McNabb 5 times betweeon 2001- 2008.

If you have a good organization and Brady, Peyton, Rothlisberger, Mahomes, Rodgers, Eli, Brees, or Russell WIlson you will have a solid chance of winning. If you don't then you might be a franchise liek the Vikings making it in 00, 09, 17, about once every 8 years.

Moving from that, I would claim that there are only two out of 32 NFL franchises that (in the modern era) that are disproportionately represented in championship games without one of these high level QBs: Philadelphia and San Fransisco. But almost all of this is represented by two coaches: Jim Harbaugh (not good enough to pass a Kwesi interview) and Kyle Shanahan. WIth Philly it was mainly Andy Reid but there was a lot of bad teams between Reid last playoff team in 2010 and their Super Bowl win in 2017 under Doug Pederson. And that 2017 team wasn't sustained until the last couple of years.

But almost none of those QBs you listed were sure things, hence why they are so spread out with where they're drafted.

Brady: 6th rd
Peyton: 1st
Roethlisberger: 11th
Mahomes: 10th
Rodgers: late first
Eli: 1st, though Roethlisberger in that draft is still better
Brees: 2nd rd
Wilson: 3rd rd

I'm not arguing that the team shouldn't pursue that, just that there's no science to it.
You're probably not going to get one of those guys, and throwing more assets at a guy won't change that.

[PurpleValhalla]

It's a dynamic process so applying arbritrary values to a pick number doesn't make sense. Like if Caleb Williams fell to #2, you wouldn't increase your offer?

[minnemike]

Yes and no.
There's still a monumental difference in guys like Mahomes/Brady vs guys like Dak/Cousins/Tannehill.
Even someone like Tua for instance. For all intents and purposes, Tua is a draft "success" but I still think Mia should be VERY cautious about giving him $55M or so. He's not THAT good.

If there were more QBs, especially on newer contracts, in the $35M-$40M range, then that's a sizable enough difference between the top of the heap.
But that's not the case. When a 36 year old QB with one career playoff win, coming off an achillees injury gets $100M guaranteed, there's clearly not any momentum to change this.

That means teams in that range will always be at a disadvantage and that means the margin of error for drafting becomes even more thin.

The problem is these players are not manufactured. There are only a 3-5 of these QBs in the league at the same time. You can occasionally win with a QB outside of this group, but those seasons are few and far between and they are virtually impossible to replicate.

I have shown the dominance in the AFC of Brady, Manning, Rothlisberger, and now Mahomes.

If you go back to 2001 (Brady's first playoff run), 21 out of the 22 AFC Championship games has involved AT LEAST one of these quarterbacks. The AFC Championship game has featured at least on of those 4 quarterbacks in the years 2003 - 2023 inclusive. In 8 of those season, BOTH of the quarterbacks were from that list. Even more concentrated, since 2001, the AFC champion in the Super Bowl has only been with three teams WITHOUT one of those 4 quarterbacks: Rich Gannon and the 2002 Oakland Raiders, Joe Flacco and the 2012 Baltimore Ravens, and Joe Burrows of the 2021 Cincinnati Bengals.

The NFC isn't as concentrated because I think the AFC had the dominant QBs of the era. But Rodgers, Eli Manning, Drew Brees, and Russell WIlson have accounted for 10 of the 30 possible starting QBs in NFC championship games. Before that period, the EAgles made the Championship with one of my favorite players Donovan McNabb 5 times betweeon 2001- 2008.

If you have a good organization and Brady, Peyton, Rothlisberger, Mahomes, Rodgers, Eli, Brees, or Russell WIlson you will have a solid chance of winning. If you don't then you might be a franchise liek the Vikings making it in 00, 09, 17, about once every 8 years.

Moving from that, I would claim that there are only two out of 32 NFL franchises that (in the modern era) that are disproportionately represented in championship games without one of these high level QBs: Philadelphia and San Fransisco. But almost all of this is represented by two coaches: Jim Harbaugh (not good enough to pass a Kwesi interview) and Kyle Shanahan. WIth Philly it was mainly Andy Reid but there was a lot of bad teams between Reid last playoff team in 2010 and their Super Bowl win in 2017 under Doug Pederson. And that 2017 team wasn't sustained until the last couple of years.

But almost none of those QBs you listed were sure things, hence why they are so spread out with where they're drafted.

Brady: 6th rd
Peyton: 1st
Roethlisberger: 11th
Mahomes: 10th
Rodgers: late first
Eli: 1st, though Roethlisberger in that draft is still better
Brees: 2nd rd
Wilson: 3rd rd

I'm not arguing that the team shouldn't pursue that, just that there's no science to it.
You're probably not going to get one of those guys, and throwing more assets at a guy won't change that.

Would be interesting to see the breakdown of the quality of team these QBs were joining. Not sure how to quantify that and if you could, it would be alot of work. The obvious correlation could be that the lower drafted QBs benefitted from better teams around them. MN is squarely in that same conversation being at 10. Only two of them top 9 picks.

Not enough data for those that traded up into the top picks and actually being good teams.

[Oriole81]

The issue with qb contracts imo is a microcosm of a bigger issue of poor drafting. If a gm is constantly hitting on draft picks then paying a qb top dollar won’t be an issue because you can properly plan on a replacement for someone else you can’t afford to pay.

We berated cousins and having to pay him top dollar but that was because we had to use free agency to build a team because spielman wiffed on early picks during cousins time here like treadwell, Alexander, Bradbury, gladney, irv smith, mattison, mike hughes, dantzler, cine, and asamoah

Yes and no.
There's still a monumental difference in guys like Mahomes/Brady vs guys like Dak/Cousins/Tannehill.
Even someone like Tua for instance. For all intents and purposes, Tua is a draft "success" but I still think Mia should be VERY cautious about giving him $55M or so. He's not THAT good.

If there were more QBs, especially on newer contracts, in the $35M-$40M range, then that's a sizable enough difference between the top of the heap.
But that's not the case. When a 36 year old QB with one career playoff win, coming off an achillees injury gets $100M guaranteed, there's clearly not any momentum to change this.

That means teams in that range will always be at a disadvantage and that means the margin of error for drafting becomes even more thin.

The problem is these players are not manufactured. There are only a 3-5 of these QBs in the league at the same time. You can occasionally win with a QB outside of this group, but those seasons are few and far between and they are virtually impossible to replicate.

I have shown the dominance in the AFC of Brady, Manning, Rothlisberger, and now Mahomes.

If you go back to 2001 (Brady's first playoff run), 21 out of the 22 AFC Championship games has involved AT LEAST one of these quarterbacks. The AFC Championship game has featured at least on of those 4 quarterbacks in the years 2003 - 2023 inclusive. In 8 of those season, BOTH of the quarterbacks were from that list. Even more concentrated, since 2001, the AFC champion in the Super Bowl has only been with three teams WITHOUT one of those 4 quarterbacks: Rich Gannon and the 2002 Oakland Raiders, Joe Flacco and the 2012 Baltimore Ravens, and Joe Burrows of the 2021 Cincinnati Bengals.

The NFC isn't as concentrated because I think the AFC had the dominant QBs of the era. But Rodgers, Eli Manning, Drew Brees, and Russell WIlson have accounted for 10 of the 30 possible starting QBs in NFC championship games. Before that period, the EAgles made the Championship with one of my favorite players Donovan McNabb 5 times betweeon 2001- 2008.

If you have a good organization and Brady, Peyton, Rothlisberger, Mahomes, Rodgers, Eli, Brees, or Russell WIlson you will have a solid chance of winning. If you don't then you might be a franchise liek the Vikings making it in 00, 09, 17, about once every 8 years.

Moving from that, I would claim that there are only two out of 32 NFL franchises that (in the modern era) that are disproportionately represented in championship games without one of these high level QBs: Philadelphia and San Fransisco. But almost all of this is represented by two coaches: Jim Harbaugh (not good enough to pass a Kwesi interview) and Kyle Shanahan. WIth Philly it was mainly Andy Reid but there was a lot of bad teams between Reid last playoff team in 2010 and their Super Bowl win in 2017 under Doug Pederson. And that 2017 team wasn't sustained until the last couple of years.

Missed the bottom paragraph, but that does feed into the grander point I'm trying to make as well.
Great head coaches have no salary cap, you don't have to trade assets to acquire (mostly), don't have to worry about injury, and don't have to worry about age.

More of a priority should be put on a team getting a star HC.
Probably more so even than a QB.

[mlhouse]

But almost none of those QBs you listed were sure things, hence why they are so spread out with where they're drafted.

Brady: 6th rd
Peyton: 1st
Roethlisberger: 11th
Mahomes: 10th
Rodgers: late first
Eli: 1st, though Roethlisberger in that draft is still better
Brees: 2nd rd
Wilson: 3rd rd

I'm not arguing that the team shouldn't pursue that, just that there's no science to it.
You're probably not going to get one of those guys, and throwing more assets at a guy won't change that.

Decisions made in uncertainty have, well, uncertain outcomes. But there is a science to it essentially. THere are traits that successful QBs have and less successful QBs do not have.

With Penix, using an example, there are very few QBs in teh NFL that are successful with his arm angle. Phillip Rivers is a notable success although Rivers's Chargers team was under 500 half of Rivers' seasons with the team

. So it doesn't mean that a QB with that arm angle isn't going to be successful, just that it is extremely unlikely. But RIvers was much more athletic and much tougher. Until Penix had pretty good measurables at his pro day, I would not have even considered selecting him . But that opened a small window for me to consider him (in a non-real world sense) even though he really does not play to those measurables on the field.

[Oriole81]

But almost none of those QBs you listed were sure things, hence why they are so spread out with where they're drafted.

Brady: 6th rd
Peyton: 1st
Roethlisberger: 11th
Mahomes: 10th
Rodgers: late first
Eli: 1st, though Roethlisberger in that draft is still better
Brees: 2nd rd
Wilson: 3rd rd

I'm not arguing that the team shouldn't pursue that, just that there's no science to it.
You're probably not going to get one of those guys, and throwing more assets at a guy won't change that.

Decisions made in uncertainty have, well, uncertain outcomes. But there is a science to it essentially. THere are traits that successful QBs have and less successful QBs do not have.

With Penix, using an example, there are very few QBs in teh NFL that are successful with his arm angle. Phillip Rivers is a notable success although Rivers's Chargers team was under 500 half of Rivers' seasons with the team

. So it doesn't mean that a QB with that arm angle isn't going to be successful, just that it is extremely unlikely. But RIvers was much more athletic and much tougher. Until Penix had pretty good measurables at his pro day, I would not have even considered selecting him . But that opened a small window for me to consider him (in a non-real world sense) even though he really does not play to those measurables on the field.

I agree with that, but along with Penix you would also get two additional first round picks to spend elsewhere, including this year's #11.

You didn't answer though how much you would pay for Maye. I get that you're higher on JJ, which is fine.
3 firsts to get up to #3 is a comparable market deal based on previous trades.
But let's say it goes Williams, Daniels, McCarthy.
Would you trade the same 3 firsts for Maye?