2021 Comprehensive Draft Thread

[KDawg]

2 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

Who are the highly touted QB prospects for 2020?

 

Also, if the Giants finish with the second worst record, I wonder if they stick with Jones.

 

 

For 2020?

 

It was Tua, Burrow, Herbert.

 

I’m guessing you mean 2021. It’s Lawrence and Fields. And then right now Wilson and Lance (he’s more developmental). 

Edited October 27, 2020 by KDawg

[PartyPosse]

16 minutes ago, KDawg said:

For 2020?

 

It was Tua, Burrow, Herbert.

 

I’m guessing you mean 2021. It’s Lawrence and Fields. And then right now Wilson and Lance (he’s more developmental). 

I meant 2022 lol. 

[The Consigliere]

1 hour ago, PartyPosse said:

I meant 2022 lol. 

Just going off DLF's Devy rankings, they have them as Howell, Slovis and Rattler, when it's two years out the list is smaller for them, many will announce themselves down the line especially considering the debacle that is 2020. I don't know anything about any of them yet, as my focus has been largely on playmakers for the '21 class for my dynasty leagues, and just the OL prospects which relate. 

 

It's really hard to see what will happen, we look out of luck w/this class which looks right there with the '12, '17, '18, '20 classes in terms of talent, definitely doesn't seem for now like '21 compares, although it doesn't look as bad as '13, '14 and '19 classes either (the worst classes of this past decade) or the dog doo on your shoe '11 class notorious for a lot of god awful QB's going early. 

 

We'll see, we won't have a good picture on it for another year because of what a mess this college season is setting up to be. 

[PartyPosse]

11 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

Just going off DLF's Devy rankings, they have them as Howell, Slovis and Rattler, when it's two years out the list is smaller for them, many will announce themselves down the line especially considering the debacle that is 2020. I don't know anything about any of them yet, as my focus has been largely on playmakers for the '21 class for my dynasty leagues, and just the OL prospects which relate. 

 

It's really hard to see what will happen, we look out of luck w/this class which looks right there with the '12, '17, '18, '20 classes in terms of talent, definitely doesn't seem for now like '21 compares, although it doesn't look as bad as '13, '14 and '19 classes either (the worst classes of this past decade) or the dog doo on your shoe '11 class notorious for a lot of god awful QB's going early. 

 

We'll see, we won't have a good picture on it for another year because of what a mess this college season is setting up to be. 

Seems shallow. I wonder if there's a chance Fields could wait a year since he's only a junior.

[Berggy9598]

15 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

Just going off DLF's Devy rankings, they have them as Howell, Slovis and Rattler, when it's two years out the list is smaller for them, many will announce themselves down the line especially considering the debacle that is 2020. I don't know anything about any of them yet, as my focus has been largely on playmakers for the '21 class for my dynasty leagues, and just the OL prospects which relate. 

 

It's really hard to see what will happen, we look out of luck w/this class which looks right there with the '12, '17, '18, '20 classes in terms of talent, definitely doesn't seem for now like '21 compares, although it doesn't look as bad as '13, '14 and '19 classes either (the worst classes of this past decade) or the dog doo on your shoe '11 class notorious for a lot of god awful QB's going early. 

 

We'll see, we won't have a good picture on it for another year because of what a mess this college season is setting up to be. 

I can see Jayden Daniels and Spencer Sanders potentially joining that list. 

[KDawg]

2 hours ago, PartyPosse said:

Seems shallow. I wonder if there's a chance Fields could wait a year since he's only a junior.

He could. But he won't assuming the season goes reasonably close to expectations. The dude is probably going to be the #2 pick in the draft.

[KDawg]

I just realized Isaiah Simmons had the OT pick for Arizona Sunday night. I had the audio off and forgot he was number #48.

 

He only played like 5 snaps but that pick looked very Isaiah Simmons esque 

[philibusters]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

I just realized Isaiah Simmons had the OT pick for Arizona Sunday night. I had the audio off and forgot he was number #48.

 

He only played like 5 snaps but that pick looked very Isaiah Simmons esque 

 

He showed blitzed and bailed.   Wilson underestimated how quickly he could get back.

 

He is struggled but the talent is definitely there.

[stoshuaj]

12 hours ago, The Consigliere said:

 

You win with franchise QB's......

While this debate has, and will continue to drone on for years:

 

Yes, you do.  And good teams (Steelers, Pats, Pack, Seattle, etc) have managed to figure out how to win with a franchise qb that wasn’t drafted at the top of the 1st round AND pick from the back end of the draft for YEARS while somehow, some way found a way to keep winning.   I’d rather the Team follow that lead than constantly chase for laughing stock suckitude just for a pick that could end up being fool’s gold.

 

And, 

 

top 10 qbs this year:

 

Ryan - 1:3

Watson - 1:12

Burrow- 1:1

Allen - 1:7

Bridgewater - 1:32

Brady - round 6

Mahomes - 1:10

Wilson - 3:12

Prescott - round 4

Minshew- round 6
 

That’s 2 whole qbs fitting your criteria of “gotta have a top pick to get a decent qb”

 

win and figure out the draft when it gets here

Edited October 28, 2020 by stoshuaj

[KDawg]

Like I said before, the win took some wind out of my sails as well. But, it happened and it felt good while it happened regardless of the implications.

 

I do struggle with short term gratification vs. long term results as a fan of this team that’s been through the wringer. 
 

So while it looks like the team probably won’t recover from the win to regain the draft position to attain Fields or Lawrence, as a draft fan, it gives me reason to start delving into different possibilities. Including later QB prospects and other early round options. 
 

This team can be improved with a non-blue chip QB. There are also likely to be QB options on the market as well for the time being. 
 

It’s not as clean or as easy as drafting a blue chipper at QB. But it can happen.

[Thinking Skins]

6 hours ago, stoshuaj said:

That’s 2 whole qbs fitting your criteria of “gotta have a top pick to get a decent qb”

 

win and figure out the draft when it gets here

Whats funny is that its not just a "this year" type thing. No matter how you look at it, if you're going by QBs in the playoffs, QBR, Passer Rating, number of winning seasons, etc, you always get that the draft is a crapshoot. Sure there are guys who come out like Luck or Manning, but people were calling RG3 a lock and then he got hurt. People were calling Tua a lock then he got hurt ?twice?. Even some of the gyus you name, look at Ryan. He will forever be compared to Flacco, another first rounder who put up nowhere near the stats of Ryan but he landed on a stable organization where he wasn't expected to do everything and he was a much better playoff QB and led his team to a SB victory. Go back to Wentz and he is not the hero  of Philadelphia - Foles has the statue, a 4th round guy. 

[Thinking Skins]

8 hours ago, KDawg said:

I just realized Isaiah Simmons had the OT pick for Arizona Sunday night. I had the audio off and forgot he was number #48.

 

He only played like 5 snaps but that pick looked very Isaiah Simmons esque 

I was intrigued by Simmons in the last draft because I think MLBs are more important to a defense than pass rushers. I think pass rushers can be somewhat "created" / found late with a good getoff or speed or minimized but MLBs are the heart of the defense and (just from my opinion) are a lot harder to find. That's somewhat changing because offenses are changing and so we are no longer going for the 260 downhill running MLB, and the question becomes what are the needs of a MLB. I had my doubts about Simmons particularly because he was called this master of all positions  and all I could think of was the whole "jack of all trades master of none thing". And I know I have favored guys like Foster the year we got Allen and Vander Esch the year we got Payne I also liked Edmonds and Watt. But the thing is some of these guys were projected to be MLB / ILBs but are now pass rushers and OLBs. 

[KDawg]

12 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

I was intrigued by Simmons in the last draft because I think MLBs are more important to a defense than pass rushers. I think pass rushers can be somewhat "created" / found late with a good getoff or speed or minimized but MLBs are the heart of the defense and (just from my opinion) are a lot harder to find. That's somewhat changing because offenses are changing and so we are no longer going for the 260 downhill running MLB, and the question becomes what are the needs of a MLB. I had my doubts about Simmons particularly because he was called this master of all positions  and all I could think of was the whole "jack of all trades master of none thing". And I know I have favored guys like Foster the year we got Allen and Vander Esch the year we got Payne I also liked Edmonds and Watt. But the thing is some of these guys were projected to be MLB / ILBs but are now pass rushers and OLBs. 

Simmons is not a Mike. He’s a hybrid safety/outside backer type that’s transitioning into the league as more of a pure outside backer so far in the NFL. 
 

His strength is his versatility, brain and athleticism and being pigeonholed into the role he’s playing now (which was likely to happen in the NFL) has given him a bit more of a steep learning curve. He also happens to be an excellent edge rusher.
 

That play was classic Isaiah Simmons, though. Show, bail underneath the route concept, pick it off. 

Edited October 28, 2020 by KDawg

[Thinking Skins]

1 minute ago, KDawg said:

Simmons is not a Mike. He’s a hybrid safety/outside backer type that’s transitioning into the league as more of a pure outside backer so far in the NFL. 

Its interesting to hear that because I was hearing the everything last year and probably the hybrid S/LB role the most but also MIke, CB, and Edge. That's one of the things that frustrated me about him but I did read the Mike projections as well, but most were like its just dependent on where a coach chooses to play him. At the time I wouldn't have minded trading down from 2 to a lower pick to get Simmons but I was more of the mold that if we didn't get Young (and no QB) then I wanted a MLB. But I don't even know who the first Mike taken was. Was that Queen? Brooks? Those were bottom of the first picks. Maybe Murray at 21? 

 

I know we have the discussions about SDH and Holcomb and others on the team about what they play best Inside vs outside and in different schemes. So I'm guessing that same thing is going on with other teams. And its kinda frustrating to me when I see a guy who I think projects as a MLB come in and play Edge or outside. I thought if we couldn't get Foster we should go after Watt because he projected to be an ILB until Pitt played him at Edge and outside. 

[KDawg]

Simmons could play a Mike in a nickel coverage package, but that’s not what he should be basing in. He’s better on the edges and up high than he is inside the box. He is also better shedding blocks on the outside than the quick hitters inside.

[Panninho]

I think Fields looked very good against Nebraska. He had great accuracy and displayed a lot of great traits.

However, per PFF "his average time to throw was nearly 3.4 seconds, and he took a sack or scrambled on over one-third of his dropbacks." That is in no way replicable on an NFL level. He has an awesome O-line (commentators called it "maybe the best in all of college football") and the athletic ability to extend plays, so naturally he is not forced to make quick decisions. But how can we assess his ability to go through his reads in an NFL level time, when he is not asked to? That obviously applies to other QBs who are surrounded by superior talent as well but it still raises some serious questions for me. I also saw him locked in to receivers. This is also understandable because he has some awesome receivers who will get open most of the time but in the NFL those staredowns are not going to work. There were other reps where he seemed to go through his reads nicely and then threw a great ball in stride but I am always wondering about replicability when you are forced out of your comfort zone so rarely.

 

Now all of this is, like I said, true for many college quarterbacks and it is what makes this position extra hard to scout. A lot of people here understand 10 times more about player evaluations and the NFL scouts are the top of the top and get paid to do that and they still get it wrong more often than not with that position. I am just not sure if Fields is it and I don't know if I would comfortably pick him at #2 (if we somehow ended up with that pick). For now, I am not to disappointed that we maybe dropped out of the range to draft him. I might be in a couple of years but for now I am okay.

[The Consigliere]

15 hours ago, PartyPosse said:

Seems shallow. I wonder if there's a chance Fields could wait a year since he's only a junior.

 

I'm just using one source, it is shallow, there's more than that I'm sure, that's just the guys rated by that crew as significant prospects right now. Top 50ish when combined w/all the prospects from the '21 class at QB/RB/WR/TE. There's more, I just haven't dug around yet. Others could augment the list much better than I. 

[The Consigliere]

4 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

Whats funny is that its not just a "this year" type thing. No matter how you look at it, if you're going by QBs in the playoffs, QBR, Passer Rating, number of winning seasons, etc, you always get that the draft is a crapshoot. Sure there are guys who come out like Luck or Manning, but people were calling RG3 a lock and then he got hurt. People were calling Tua a lock then he got hurt ?twice?. Even some of the gyus you name, look at Ryan. He will forever be compared to Flacco, another first rounder who put up nowhere near the stats of Ryan but he landed on a stable organization where he wasn't expected to do everything and he was a much better playoff QB and led his team to a SB victory. Go back to Wentz and he is not the hero  of Philadelphia - Foles has the statue, a 4th round guy. 

Foles is on what, his fifth or sixth team? 

Dominant QB's of the past 20 years:

Tom Brady: 5th

Josh Allen*: High 1st

Ben Roth: Mid 1st

Joe Flacco**: 1st

Lamar Jackson*: Late 1st

D. Watson: 1st

Andrew Luck: High 1st

Peyton Manning: High 1st

Patrick Mahomes: Mid 1st

Philip Rivers: High 1st

Donovan McNabb: High 1st

Eli Manning**: High 1st

Dak Prescott: 4th

Tony Romo: UDFA

Kirk Cousins: 4th

Brett Favre: 2nd

Aaron Rodgers: Late 1st

Matthew Stafford: High 1st

Matt Ryan: High 1st

D. Brees: Late 1st

Cam Newton: High 1st

Kyler Murray: High 1st

Russell Wilson: 3rd

 

You can quibble with some, and I might have forgotten others, but these guys are basically the best QB's of the past 20 years in terms of production, or presently, w/a few asterisk guys (Flacco and Eli were more beneficiaries who rode their teams than actual superlatie talents, Josh Allen and Lamar are just arriving). but go through that list, and nearly all the hits were taken in the first, there are a handful of exceptions, Wilson, Brady, Cousins, Romo, Prescott, and Favre/Brees who were first round turn picks on either side of the round if memory serves. 

 

But it looks to me like the guys who had the biggest impact historically, are currently doing so, and/or were elite in their prime in terms of production go like this:

1st round: 17 (10 high, 2 mid)

2nd round: 1

3rd round: 1

4th round: 2

5th round: 1

UDFA: 1

 

It's not really a crap shoot, somewhere between 75-90% of the starting QB's at any given point in the league are 1st rounders, most of them top 10 to top 15, betting on hitting on a late guy is possible (we did ourselves) but generally it's a fools errand because so few of them hit, especially in the modern era compared to the distant past. If I misremembered exactly when San Diego snagged Brees (late first or early 2nd) or Atlanta getting Favre (thought it was early to mid 2nd, couldn't remember), understand that I get it, and I'm not trying to obfuscate. If I've forgotten particular guys, please feel free to add them.

 

I do think this covers it pretty well though. 

[Thinking Skins]

So there are two discussions here though. One is do we need a "TOP" QB in the draft vs a first round QB. The other is do we need a first round QB vs another QB.

Of the QBs you mention: 

Tom Brady: not first QB taken

Josh Allen*: not first QB taken

Ben Roth: not first QB taken

Joe Flacco**: not first QB taken

Lamar Jackson*: not first QB taken

D. Watson: not first QB taken

Andrew Luck: first QB taken

Peyton Manning: first QB taken

Patrick Mahomes: not first QB taken

Philip Rivers: not first QB taken (although you could debate he was)

Donovan McNabb: not first QB taken (Couch was one of the top busts ever)

Eli Manning**: first QB taken

Dak Prescott: not first QB taken

Tony Romo: not first QB taken

Kirk Cousins: not first QB taken

Brett Favre: not first QB taken

Aaron Rodgers: not first QB taken

Matthew Stafford: first QB taken

Matt Ryan: first QB taken

D. Brees: not first QB taken

Cam Newton: first QB taken

Kyler Murray: first QB taken

Russell Wilson: not first QB taken

 

So we are looking at an argument of tank for

P Manning, Luck, E Manning, Stafford, Ryan, Newton or Murray. 

 

The only time that these guys were the obvious best QB in the draft was P. Manning (Ben is better than Eli). Stafford, Newton and Murray. But Manning is the only one with a ring. This goes against the whole tank for whoever because without tanking you can take a lower projected QB (even if it is a first) and still get a franchise guy. 

 

Then there is the other whole argument about things like QB whisperers like GB where they would take a QB every year and develop them and fix their flaws and trade them every year (I know Hasselbeck and Brunell are two consequences of this), until they ultimately drafted Rodgers and let Favre go. So the question becomes how many of these lower round QBs could be starter material if given a chance. I point you to guys like AJ McCarron, Kyle Allen, CJ Beathard, Nick Mullens, Brett Rypken, and a bunch of others who have gotten very limited playing time over the years but have been benched for a hot young prospect or because their starter was healthy again. 

 

Also should be considered: 

Minshew

Fitzpatrick

Garopolo

Keenum

Derek Carr

Tyrod Taylor

Orton

Schaub

Cassel

Pennington

Bulger

Trent Edwards

Brad Johnson

 

These are all lower round picks who have shown as much if not more promise than some of the first round busts of QBs who went in some of those same drafts that are mentioned. Its not a guarantee that just because we tank for Trevor or whoever that its going to be a success, especially when history shows that we can do well with a mid-first pick at QB or a lower round pick at QB. 

[Panninho]

17 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

It's not really a crap shoot, somewhere between 75-90% of the starting QB's at any given point in the league are 1st rounders, most of them top 10 to top 15, betting on hitting on a late guy is possible (we did ourselves) but generally it's a fools errand because so few of them hit, especially in the modern era compared to the distant past. If I misremembered exactly when San Diego snagged Brees (late first or early 2nd) or Atlanta getting Favre (thought it was early to mid 2nd, couldn't remember), understand that I get it, and I'm not trying to obfuscate. If I've forgotten particular guys, please feel free to add them.

 

I do think this covers it pretty well though. 

I think the argument isn't so much that you find all those great QBs outside of round 1. The argument is that there were a lot more great potential QBs taken high in round 1 that were busts than those that were slam dunk success stories. And that you don't need the first or second overall pick to get a franchise QB in round 1. It sure helps, but it's not a requirement. And in general it's just logical that 75-90% of the starting QBs are first rounders. The value of the position is immensely high and no position gets scouted with more rigor. Teams will swing and miss until they find one.

 

But if we look at this list of starting QBs right now:

 

Josh Allen (Mayfield, Darnold)

Mahomes (Trubisky)

Herbert (still TBD)

Big Ben (Manning and Rivers but guess all of them were somewhat happy)

Lamar Jackson (Mayfield, Darnold)

Tannehill (is the only one left over Luck and RG3)

Deshaun Watson (Trubisky)

Prescott (a couple more)

Wilson (Luck, RG3, Tannehill)

Cousins (a couple more)

Brady (...)

Brees (Michael Vick)

 

Those are all QBs that currently start that I would take gladly over what we have at QB. All of them were drafted later than pick 6 and in many of those cases they were the best QB in the draft even though there were others drafted before them that were inferior or got hurt/retired early (put in brackets). The argument always will be whether the players would have succeeded in the other spots and it's a fair question. But so many high QB picks over the last couple of years were absolute busts. So if we now miss out on Fields and Lawrence it might be that they tear up the league and we look back in anger but there is just as much of a chance that one of them busts and some guy drafted at a later point becomes a new steal where everyone asks themselves how that player could have dropped.

 

Look at Herbert. Chargers got him at 10. Looks great so far, maybe even better than Burrow and Tua hasn't played yet. No one thought that he was this good before the draft or he would have gone #2 or #3 the latest. It's just what it is.

 

So is it a crap shot more than at another position? Probably not. But it's still a crapshot in that sense that if you don't have an Andrew Luck or Peyton Manning type of prospect coming out, you still risk taking an inferior player with the #1 or #2 pick than some team drafting later.

 

Maybe in three years from now Zach Wilson is the best QB from the 2021 draft class, who knows.

 

 

[Thinking Skins]

Here's a look at the top QBs in every draft from 1996 to 2016 with their round taken, passing yards and rushing yards. I only included the ones above 14000 passing yards in their careers to have a smaller list. In bold are the QBs not taken in the first round. We can generally see that in just about every draft there is a lower round guy performing on par with the first rounders. 

 

1996 Tony Banks Round 2 15000yds, 800

 

1997 Jake Plummer Round 2 29000 yds, 1800

 

1998 Peyton Manning Round 1 71000 yds, 600
1998 Matt Hasselbeck Round 6 36000, 1200
1998 Brian Grese Round 3 19000, 500

 

1999 Donovan McNabb Round 1 37000, 3400
1999 Daunte Culpepper Round 1 24000, 2600
1999 Aaron Brooks Round 4 20000, 1500

 

2000 Tom Brady Round 6, 76000, 1000
2000 Marc Bulger Round 6, 22000, 300
2000 Chad Pennington Round 1, 17000, 400

 

2001 Drew Brees Round 2 79000, 700
2001 Michael Vick Round 1 22000, 6000

 

2002 Josh McCown Round 3, 17000, 1100
2002 David Gerrard Round 4, 16000, 1700
2002 Joey Harrington Round 1, 14000, 400
2002 David Carr Round 1, 14000, 1300

 

2003 Carson Palmer Round 1, 46000, 400

 

2004 Philip Rivers Round 1, 60000, 600
2004 Ben Roetheslisberger Round 1, 57000, 1300
2004 Eli Manning Round 1, 57000, 500
2004 Matt Schaub Round 4, 25000, 300

 

2005 Aaron Rodgers Round 1, 48000, 3000
2005 Alex Smith Round 1, 34000, 2600
2005 Ryan Fitzpatrick Round 7, 3400, 2600
2005 Kyle Orton Round 4, 18000, 200
2005 Matt Cassel Round 7, 17000, 1000
2005 Jason Campbell Round 1, 16000, 1200

 

2006 Jay Cutler Round 1, 35000, 1600

 

2008 Matt Ryan Round 1, 53000, 1300
2008 Joe Flacco Round 1, 40000, 800

 

2009 Matthew Stafford Round 1, 42000, 1100
2009 Mark Sanchez Round 1, 15000, 400

 

2010 Sam Bradford Round 1, 19000, 300

 

2011 Andy Dalton Round 2, 32000, 1200
2011 Cam Newton Round 1, 30000, 5050

 

2012 Russell Wilson Round 3, 31000, 4000
2012 Kirk Cousins Round 4, 25000, 600
2012 Ryan Tannehill Round 1, 24000, 1400
2012 Andrew Luck Round 1, 23000, 1500

 

2014 Derek Carr Round 2, 24000, 500
2014 Blake Bortles Round 1, 17000, 1700

 

2015 Jameis Winston Round 1, 19000, 1000

 

2016 Dak Prescott Round 4, 17000, 1300
2016 Jared Goff Round 1, 16000, 200
2016 Carson Wentz Round 1, 15000, 900

 

This is not to say that the first rounders are always a bust or the low rounds are always better but just that its a crapshoot and all this tank for whoever sounds good in theory til we draft a Tim Couch or a Joey Harrington or Derek Carr and pass up on a Dak Prescott or a Russell Wilson. 

[philibusters]

4 hours ago, Panninho said:

I think Fields looked very good against Nebraska. He had great accuracy and displayed a lot of great traits.

However, per PFF "his average time to throw was nearly 3.4 seconds, and he took a sack or scrambled on over one-third of his dropbacks." That is in no way replicable on an NFL level. He has an awesome O-line (commentators called it "maybe the best in all of college football") and the athletic ability to extend plays, so naturally he is not forced to make quick decisions. But how can we assess his ability to go through his reads in an NFL level time, when he is not asked to? That obviously applies to other QBs who are surrounded by superior talent as well but it still raises some serious questions for me. I also saw him locked in to receivers. This is also understandable because he has some awesome receivers who will get open most of the time but in the NFL those staredowns are not going to work. There were other reps where he seemed to go through his reads nicely and then threw a great ball in stride but I am always wondering about replicability when you are forced out of your comfort zone so rarely.

 

Now all of this is, like I said, true for many college quarterbacks and it is what makes this position extra hard to scout. A lot of people here understand 10 times more about player evaluations and the NFL scouts are the top of the top and get paid to do that and they still get it wrong more often than not with that position. I am just not sure if Fields is it and I don't know if I would comfortably pick him at #2 (if we somehow ended up with that pick). For now, I am not to disappointed that we maybe dropped out of the range to draft him. I might be in a couple of years but for now I am okay.

 

Those are good questions.  A lot of it comes down the attitude of the QB.  Fields has the physical tools to succeed in the NFL, but how hungry is to improve will go a long way to determining his success because as you point out the NFL will be different than college.   Haskins had the physical tools too, not the mobility of Fields, but the arm to succeed, but part of the reason he failed at the NFL level in his first opportunity was because he wasn't hungry to improve.

[stoshuaj]

1 hour ago, The Consigliere said:

Foles is on what, his fifth or sixth team? 

Dominant QB's of the past 20 years:

Tom Brady: 5th

Josh Allen*: High 1st

Ben Roth: Mid 1st

Joe Flacco**: 1st

Lamar Jackson*: Late 1st

D. Watson: 1st

Andrew Luck: High 1st

Peyton Manning: High 1st

Patrick Mahomes: Mid 1st

Philip Rivers: High 1st

Donovan McNabb: High 1st

Eli Manning**: High 1st

Dak Prescott: 4th

Tony Romo: UDFA

Kirk Cousins: 4th

Brett Favre: 2nd

Aaron Rodgers: Late 1st

Matthew Stafford: High 1st

Matt Ryan: High 1st

D. Brees: Late 1st

Cam Newton: High 1st

Kyler Murray: High 1st

Russell Wilson: 3rd

 

You can quibble with some, and I might have forgotten others, but these guys are basically the best QB's of the past 20 years in terms of production, or presently, w/a few asterisk guys (Flacco and Eli were more beneficiaries who rode their teams than actual superlatie talents, Josh Allen and Lamar are just arriving). but go through that list, and nearly all the hits were taken in the first, there are a handful of exceptions, Wilson, Brady, Cousins, Romo, Prescott, and Favre/Brees who were first round turn picks on either side of the round if memory serves. 

 

But it looks to me like the guys who had the biggest impact historically, are currently doing so, and/or were elite in their prime in terms of production go like this:

1st round: 17 (10 high, 2 mid)

2nd round: 1

3rd round: 1

4th round: 2

5th round: 1

UDFA: 1

 

It's not really a crap shoot, somewhere between 75-90% of the starting QB's at any given point in the league are 1st rounders, most of them top 10 to top 15, betting on hitting on a late guy is possible (we did ourselves) but generally it's a fools errand because so few of them hit, especially in the modern era compared to the distant past. If I misremembered exactly when San Diego snagged Brees (late first or early 2nd) or Atlanta getting Favre (thought it was early to mid 2nd, couldn't remember), understand that I get it, and I'm not trying to obfuscate. If I've forgotten particular guys, please feel free to add them.

 

I do think this covers it pretty well though. 

 

All those words just to say “ok, I’m going to change my criteria now”.....

 

You were whining about how bad it is to win a game and lose out on a top of the heap 1st round pick as if that is the only way to end up with a top tier qb.

 

Now you’re using examples of all 1st round qbs.   Last I checked, the Team still has a 1st round pick.

[Warhead36]

You need an upper echelon QB to sustain success in the NFL. He doesn't have to win MVPs but he has to be no worse than top 12 ish(so like Roethlisberger, Rivers, hell even Cousins) while also being able to occasionally play like a top 10 or top 5 guy(this would describe Eli and Flacco at least in their Super Bowl postseason runs).

 

For the most part the upper echelon QBs are first round picks. They're sprinkled all over the first, but by and large they're taken in the first round.

 

You simply maximize your chances the higher you draft one. Nothing is ever guaranteed.

 

Simple as that.

[stoshuaj]

10 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

You need an upper echelon QB to sustain success in the NFL. He doesn't have to win MVPs but he has to be no worse than top 12 ish(so like Roethlisberger, Rivers, hell even Cousins) while also being able to occasionally play like a top 10 or top 5 guy(this would describe Eli and Flacco at least in their Super Bowl postseason runs).

 

For the most part the upper echelon QBs are first round picks. They're sprinkled all over the first, but by and large they're taken in the first round.

 

You simply maximize your chances the higher you draft one. Nothing is ever guaranteed.

 

Simple as that.

Agreed, my point is that the incessant fan base hand wringing over having the temerity of actually winning a game being a bad thing and “omg omg omg we’re doomed for years to come because we won a game” is ridiculous and unsupported.