2021 Draft Order / Tracker: Current Pick #19

[Est.1974]

Is the ES default font bigger in Mexico?

 

[OVCChairman]

39 minutes ago, Skins199021 said:

I am on the Zach Wilson bandwagon. He definitely has raw talent for the NFL

 

Just hard t tell what reads he actually makes in the offense he is in

 

 

nope... 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, El Mexican said:

 

All good arguments, I agree. The problem is basing your entire Redskins analysis on the novelty of RG3.

 

 

Nope its the only argument that applies to this team because he was the only real arguably elite Qb under Dan.  For just one season.

 

The Colts were 1-15 in 2011.  They draft Andrew Luck and they are in the playoffs that season.  The fall and rise of the Cardnals.   Saints were 3-13.  They sign Brees and they are in the playoffs next season.

 

A Brad Johnson type isn't turning your franchise around fast, I agree.  But this team hopefully isn't relegated to always be stuck with the good but not real franchise QB types. 

 

You mentioned Haskins being considered elite.  No he wasn't for the most part.  Elite talented QBs go #1 or #2.  They don't fall to #15 where some say they would have fallen to the 2nd round if not for the WFT.  Kyler Murray was an elite talent, that's why he went #1.   I am not saying people could be wrong and an elite talent could be missed and they fall later in the draft.  But that's a different point. 

 

As for Haskins even with us amateurs on this board.  Most of us didn't see Haskins as elite.   Some including me thought he might end up a bust.  There were if I recall maybe 3 people on the board who thought he was great and potentially elite.

 

Every player drafted has some hype.  I can find hype about any dude in FA or in the draft to some extent but it means nothing.  Perceived elite talents at QB aren't picked in the mid to late first round like where we took Campbell, Ramsey, Haskins.  The guys that are gushed about talent wise just about always going at the top of the draft or close enough to it. 

[Skinsinparadise]

Breer

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/2020/11/19/why-cardinals-risked-it-for-kliff-kingsbury-kyler-murray-surprise-first-round-qbs-2021-draft

The rise of the 2021 Quarterback Class.

I had a veteran evaluator brings this up to me on Wednesday—Florida’s Kyle Trask’s 2020 season is starting to resemble Joe Burrow’s 2019, and Alabama’s Mac Jones has the Tide offense pacing like Tua Tagovailoa had it rolling last year. Which, of course, sent me to the numbers to see how they matched up.

Burrow, 2019 (15 games): 402-527 (76.3%), 5,671 yards, 60 TDs, 6 INTs
Trask, 2020 (projected over 15 games): 370-528 (70.1%), 5,427 yards, 70 TDs, 8 INTs

Tagovailoa, 2019 (9 games): 180-252 (71.4%), 2,840 yards, 33 TDs, 3 INTs
Jones, 2019 (projected over 9 games): 209-266 (78.5%), 3,294 yards, 24 TDs, 3 INTs

Statistically, really, the comps aren’t far off-base. Also, it’s fair to say that Florida’s offense isn’t quite as loaded as LSU’s was last year, and fair to point out that Jones doesn’t have Jerry Jeudy and Henry Ruggs this year (though Alabama’s skill talent is still very, very good). Which leads you to this question: Are these guys as good?

The short answer: No, they aren’t. I asked one NFC exec on Wednesday if those two are anywhere close to Clemson’s Trevor Lawrence or Ohio State’s Justin Fields, and got a one-word answer: “No.” But could they sneak in the first round? “It’s possible, for sure.”

“They’re not ‘wow’ players,” said the first evaluator, who raised the comps to me in the first place. “But they’re good decision-makers, they’re accurate, and you can put it this way—Trask is doing some stuff that Burrow wasn’t, and Bama’s more explosive than they were with Jeudy and Ruggs. These guys are good players.”

As for what it means draft-wise, it gives depth to a group that we’ve known was going to be really strong at the top. Lawrence is a generational prospect. Fields would probably go first overall in plenty of drafts, and only won’t in this one because of Lawrence. North Dakota State’s Trey Lance is a top-half-of-the-first-round talent, and BYU’s Zach Wilson burst on to the scene this year and is in the first-round discussion as well.

Having Trask and Jones in the mix gives you six guys who teams could view as starters. I’m not ready to call either a first-round guy (it seems to me that Jones has a better shot than Trask, who’s a little stiff as an athlete). But that it’s even a discussion point is good news for where all this is headed over the next six months.

It also should give some hope to teams like Chicago, Indianapolis, New England, and Pittsburgh, who’ll be in the market for young quarterbacks but won’t be in position to get a Lawrence or a Fields. Because it certainly looks possible now that they’ll have some guys to choose from after the dust on the top guys settles.

[PartyPosse]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

The Colts were 1-15 in 2011.  They draft Andrew Luck and they are in the playoffs that season. 

They were a consistent contender up until that year and only because they had to play Dan friggin Orlovsky did they collapse. If you don’t think there was a purposeful tank job there then I have a bridge to sell you...

[Skinsinparadise]

20 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

They were a consistent contender up until that year and only because they had to play Dan friggin Orlovsky did they collapse. If you don’t think there was a purposeful tank job there then I have a bridge to sell you...

 

Not sure how your point fits here?   If you are arguing against my actual point then your case is we are overrating the value of the QB position and the Colts don't help make my point.   If that's the case and you are explaining to me how naive I am supposedly about not understanding that the Colts were tanking.  Wouldn't the Colts tanking fit my point versus argue against my point?  Why go through all that trouble to get a QB?  Or is it they just knew they were loaded roster wise and Luck was the finishing touch?  

[Darrell Green Fan]

15 hours ago, Sellersfan said:

Great points. I think an extension of one of your points is that RG3 and the RPO was so deadly it took an average RB in Morris and made him great. The salary cap era will prevent a team of all stars. Just look at all the Patriot teams. Not stacked rosters by any means. At best you may get a dominate team on 1 side of the ball like the 2000 Ravens or 2007 Patriots.

 

The Patriots today is the perfect example what good QB play can do to a bad roster. They had all these problems last year but with Tom Brady they were still contenders.  It still amazes me, as a poster said earlier, that we have to still debate the value of a franchise QB, especially in today's game.  

[Skinsinparadise]

14 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

The Patriots today is the perfect example what good QB play can do to a bad roster. They had all these problems last year but with Tom Brady they were still contenders.  It still amazes me, as a poster said earlier, that we have to still debate the value of a franchise QB, especially in today's game.  

 

Agree.

 

The Colts for example with Luck had a crappy defense, crappy offensive line, average at best running game, good receivers.  Yet they went 11-5 with Luck.    that wouldn't have happened with just name that 15-20 ranked QB in the league.  A great QB can overcome holes on a roster.

 

We aren't really pushing a rocket science discussion point so I am surprised some are so vehement in debating it.  The point we are making is just about a cliche/conventional wisdom in the sport.  It's not some wild outlier point.  

 

If we are going to argue maybe a good QB like a Matt Ryan doesn't overcome a team's weaknesses -- that's certainly more of a debable point. 

 

But a great QB?  Great Qbs are game changers and can offset problems on the roster.  If they don't change it all in season 1, they typically change a team fast. 

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/kyler-murray-has-changed-nfl-draft-game-in-process-the-cardinals-hit-on-2-offfield-hail-marys-042316630.html

 

As one NFC West talent evaluator put it when asked in October if he would take Lawrence No. 1 overall: “I think almost everyone — every team — unless they have a top six or seven quarterback who has a lot of prime, if you’re not in that situation and you have the No. 1 pick this year, you’d have to take Lawrence. I don’t care if you have a guy you drafted last year. It’s like the Cardinals and Kyler [Murray]

a couple years ago. Lawrence is a special player and you take that player.

“I would say if the [Cincinnati] Bengals were to get the No. 1 pick again, I would draft Trevor and trade [Joe] Burrow. And I love Burrow.”

 

...Indeed, several front-office talent evaluators pointed to the Cardinals dispatching Rosen in favor of Murray only one year after taking Rosen 10th overall in the 2018 draft. And they all leaned into an underlying point that is continuing to pay dividends in Arizona — that if a team has a chance to take a quarterback who can reshape the franchise, the only time it doesn’t select him is when it already has a QB who is in that class of talent. If that means pulling the plug on a young, highly drafted (and maybe even promising) quarterback, so be it.

[PartyPosse]

20 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Not sure how your point fits here?   If you are arguing against my actual point then your case is we are overrating the value of the QB position and the Colts don't help make my point.   If that's the case and you are explaining to me how naive I am supposedly about not understanding that the Colts were tanking.  Wouldn't the Colts tanking fit my point versus argue against my point?  Why go through all that trouble to get a QB?  Or is it they just knew they were loaded roster wise and Luck was the finishing touch?  

Even a competent qb would have gotten them far but they didn’t have that luxury so they just completely tanked and figured they’d be set up for the next 15 years. I don’t think it’s vital to have a HOF QB to win if you have a competitive team already. If they were serious about winning they wouldn’t have dragged a retired QB back nor relied on Curtis Painter. They also saw the writing on the wall with Peyton and everything was perfectly aligned for them To tank. I see it no differently than what Dallas is currently doing.

[OVCChairman]

8 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 

We aren't really pushing a rocket science discussion point so I am surprised some are so vehement in debating it.  The point we are making is just about a cliche/conventional wisdom in the sport.  It's not some wild outlier point.  

 

If we are going to argue maybe a good QB like a Matt Ryan doesn't overcome a team's weaknesses -- that's certainly more of a debable point. 

But a great QB?  Great Qbs are game changers and can offset problems on the roster.  If they don't change it all in season 1, they typically change a team fast. 

 

 

 

 

I hope nobody is arguing that.  I myself am looking at it this way.  I have stated a couple times that I can see a path where building the team around the QB right now is a viable option.  That does not mean you PASS on the QB if that's the guy who can get it done.  I don't think we will have a shot at Lawrence.  I don't think we will have a shot at Fields either.  After those two, and arguably with Fields, there are questions surrounding them.  If Wilson is the guy, take him at 3.  I personally think he can get it done, so if we take him at 3 come April, at that point I will not be upset.  If they look at the QB crop and opt to take Sewell, I can see a path of success there too.  

PERSONALLY, I say focus on building a team that can win with mediocre QB play, and if you find yourself in position to get THAT GUY you do it, because the team will be that much better going forward.  You don't pass on Lawrence because you feel the team around him isn't good enough... but you also don't pass up building the team to take a QB at 3 that you're not sold on.  Does that make sense?  

[Skins199021]

Say we end up with #2 again, and Say the FO/Coaches fall in love with Trask and it seems he is going 15 or later.... (Big Hypothetical). Do you take him at #2

 

Or do you trade to say 8 pick up a 2nd and a future 1st? Or do you not risk it and get your guy at 2

 

Note this isn't a Fields vs Trask debate, more a pure hypothetical.

[Skinsinparadise]

22 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

Even a competent qb would have gotten them far but they didn’t have that luxury so they just completely tanked and figured they’d be set up for the next 15 years. I don’t think it’s vital to have a HOF QB to win if you have a competitive team already. If they were serious about winning they wouldn’t have dragged a retired QB back nor relied on Curtis Painter. They also saw the writing on the wall with Peyton and everything was perfectly aligned for them To tank. I see it no differently than what Dallas is currently doing.

 

They were a competitive team in 2010 mostly because they had one of the better QB in NFL history.  He didn't play and they stunk in 2011.  You suggest they stunk on purpose and Peyton and then Luck benefited from a loaded roster.  IMO lets agree to disagree.  I think the Colts if anything had mostly a bad roster when they acquited Luck.   They had passing weapons, that's about it as for what they had which was above average. 

 

Heck through today, people still say Andrew Luck retired early in part because the Colts didn't give him a decent O line until later in his career and he took too many hits early.

15 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

I hope nobody is arguing that.  I myself am looking at it this way.  I have stated a couple times that I can see a path where building the team around the QB right now is a viable option.  That does not mean you PASS on the QB if that's the guy who can get it done.  I don't think we will have a shot at Lawrence.  I don't think we will have a shot at Fields either.  After those two, and arguably with Fields, there are questions surrounding them.  If Wilson is the guy, take him at 3.  I personally think he can get it done, so if we take him at 3 come April, at that point I will not be upset.  If they look at the QB crop and opt to take Sewell, I can see a path of success there too.  

PERSONALLY, I say focus on building a team that can win with mediocre QB play, and if you find yourself in position to get THAT GUY you do it, because the team will be that much better going forward.  You don't pass on Lawrence because you feel the team around him isn't good enough... but you also don't pass up building the team to take a QB at 3 that you're not sold on.  Does that make sense?  

 

I was arguing with someone who suggested its a pipe dream to believe that a great QB quickly turns this franchise around.  So my points were framed around that.

 

Yeah I don't like to take a QB just to take a QB or trade the farm to get one.  So I agree with your point.  but to get specific to this draft, if we have the opportunity to draft Fields or Wilson and Kyle Smith thinks they are franchise QBs, you take them without blinking.  A franchise QB will change our prospects a lot faster than P. Sewell.  And I love Sewell. 

[OVCChairman]

6 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

I was arguing with someone who suggested its a pipe dream to believe that a great QB quickly turns this franchise around.  So my points were framed around that.

 

Yeah I don't like to take a QB just to take a QB or trade the farm to get one.  So I agree with your point.  but to get specific to this draft, if we have the opportunity to draft Fields or Wilson and Kyle Smith thinks they are franchise QBs, you take them without blinking.  A franchise QB will change our prospects a lot faster than P. Sewell.  And I love Sewell. 

 

 

Yeah i agree, sorry to reply, it's been a lot of debate so I can't exactly remember exactly who has what stance anymore lol

 

I said it in another post, I don't care who you take where, if it's your guy, you do it.  I agree 100% about no. 3.  If Wilson is their guy, take him at 3. 

 

That said, if you are going to pass on a blue chip guy like Sewell, or even Ja'Marr Chase... you better be right.  Those two guys are going to be successful.... 

[Skinsinparadise]

15 minutes ago, Skins199021 said:

Say we end up with #2 again, and Say the FO/Coaches fall in love with Trask and it seems he is going 15 or later.... (Big Hypothetical). Do you take him at #2

 

Or do you trade to say 8 pick up a 2nd and a future 1st? Or do you not risk it and get your guy at 2

 

Note this isn't a Fields vs Trask debate, more a pure hypothetical.

 

Tough for me to get over Trask as an example.  Right now, I think you and I are just as likely to go #2 as Trask is.  😀 

 

If they fall in love with Trask I'd either patiently wait to see if he drops to the 2nd round or trade up into the late first.  Granted its early in the draft process and opinions can change.  But right now the debate about Trask seems to center on whether he makes the cut to go in the back half of the first round or not. 

 

6 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

Yeah i agree, sorry to reply, it's been a lot of debate so I can't exactly remember exactly who has what stance anymore lol

 

I said it in another post, I don't care who you take where, if it's your guy, you do it.  I agree 100% about no. 3.  If Wilson is their guy, take him at 3. 

 

That said, if you are going to pass on a blue chip guy like Sewell, or even Ja'Marr Chase... you better be right.  Those two guys are going to be successful.... 

 

I am probably the biggest cheerleader or close enough on the draft thread for Ja'Marr Chase and I've called Sewell the Chase Young of this draft.

 

Yet, I wouldn't put that kind of pressure on Kyle Smith if he fell in love lets say with Zach Wilson where you better be right or else.  there is always more of a crap shoot component to QBs than another position.  You can't do anything about it.  But no guts no glory.  Reading the article i posted from Charles Robinson which gets into detail about the thought process behind taking Kyler Murray gets into that theme.  To take a big step up, you got to take chances and be bold IMO. 

 

[Skins199021]

2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Tough for me to get over Trask as an example.  Right now, I think you and I are just as likely to go #2 as Trask is.  😀 

 

If they fall in love with Trask I'd either patiently wait to see if he drops to the 2nd or trade up into the late first.  Granted its early in the draft process and opinions can change.  But right now the debate about Trask seems to center on whether he makes the cut to go in the back half of the first round or not. 

 

Purely an example haha, no sense in saying Fields or Lawrence because you just take them. Was trying to pick a QB that was assumed to go in the 2nd half of the first round but that our FO fell in love with

 

I am actually on the Zach Wilson train, a QB prospect who is going to cause a civil war on ES

[OVCChairman]

5 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I am probably the biggest cheerleader or close enough on the draft thread for Ja'Marr Chase and I've called Sewell the Chase Young of this draft.

 

Yet, I wouldn't put that kind of pressure on Kyle Smith if he fell in love lets say with Zach Wilson where you better be right or else.  there is always more of a crap shoot component to QBs than another position.  You can't do anything about it.  But no guts no glory.  reading the article i posted from Charles Robinson about the thought process behind taking Kyler Murray gets into that theme.  To take a big step up, you got to take chances and be bold IMO. 

 

 

 

I didn't mean 'or else' but yeah i could have worded that differently.  I actually have A LOT of confidence in Smith, so if we went that route, I would have a lot of confidence in the pick and wouldn't be calling for his job if he ended up being wrong.  I just meant that those guys are going to be successful (and I actually called Sewell this year's Chase Young too, lol great minds huh?) so Wilson better be the guy you believe in the most.  If you're not willing to hitch your wagon to him, attach your name to him, then you don't pull that trigger when there is that much talent on the board. 

[Sellersfan]

45 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

The Patriots today is the perfect example what good QB play can do to a bad roster. They had all these problems last year but with Tom Brady they were still contenders.  It still amazes me, as a poster said earlier, that we have to still debate the value of a franchise QB, especially in today's game.  

I for one wouldn't debate the value of a franchise QB. 

 

However, I think the root of the debate is whether the QB's projected in each years draft are truly worthy of a "franchise" designation. I think "franchise" has now replaced the term "elite" when talking about QB's. I remember the media debating if Flacco was elite or not a few years ago. At the time I resigned myself to the fact that if every QB is going to be called "elite" then no QB is "elite".

I believe too many fans have bought into the media hype around the draft. I look at the current crop of QB prospects; any of which could become "franchise" worthy and I would be willing to agree that Lawrence and Fields could be called "franchise" QB's. I can't apply the same designation to Wilson and Lance right now. Not saying that they won't be "franchise" QB's, just that the quality of competition, sample size, etc. need to be considered before saying they are "franchise" worthy and should be taken over other highly skilled players at other positions.

Was Haskins drafted as our "franchise" QB and picked ahead of Sweat given everything we know now?

[El Mexican]

4 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

Why do your posts always look like that?

 

Default size of letter of the forum is too small, man.

 

I like my fonts round and phat, like my women.

[Skinsinparadise]

11 minutes ago, Skins199021 said:

Purely an example haha, no sense in saying Fields or Lawrence because you just take them. Was trying to pick a QB that was assumed to go in the 2nd half of the first round but that our FO fell in love with

 

I am actually on the Zach Wilson train, a QB prospect who is going to cause a civil war on ES

 

Yeah my man crush is growing on Zach Wilson.  I am somewhat resigned to not being in the running for Fields.   My gut right now is you need to end up at #4 to get Zach.  I suspect the #3 if not us would be a team like Cincy or Dallas who would be unlikely to take him. 

 

I am not really smitten by any other QBs post Wilson.  I wouldn't mind taking a flier on Monds, Newman, Ridder in lets say the 3rd-4th and roll the dice.  

 

Dan isn't the brightest owner to say the least.  But his continual quest to find a franchise QB isn't dumb IMO.  It's been the main plot line as for why this team can't compete with the big boys.  Also a key plot line for why this team arguably is so irrelevant with today's youth and lost its status as a national type team.    It's a QB league.   Dan's problem is he thinks he knows how to scout these guys and he stinks at it.  He needs to listen to his scouts.  

 

 

 

[El Mexican]

4 hours ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

Is the ES default font bigger in Mexico?

 

 

Everything's bigger over here, m8.

[Sellersfan]

12 minutes ago, Skins199021 said:

 

I am actually on the Zach Wilson train, a QB prospect who is going to cause a civil war on ES

This reminds me of the "cult of Colt Brennan" group a few years ago on here.

[Skins199021]

3 minutes ago, Sellersfan said:

I for one wouldn't debate the value of a franchise QB. 

 

However, I think the root of the debate is whether the QB's projected in each years draft are truly worthy of a "franchise" designation. I think "franchise" has now replaced the term "elite" when talking about QB's. I remember the media debating if Flacco was elite or not a few years ago. At the time I resigned myself to the fact that if every QB is going to be called "elite" then no QB is "elite".

I believe too many fans have bought into the media hype around the draft. I look at the current crop of QB prospects; any of which could become "franchise" worthy and I would be willing to agree that Lawrence and Fields could be called "franchise" QB's. I can't apply the same designation to Wilson and Lance right now. Not saying that they won't be "franchise" QB's, just that the quality of competition, sample size, etc. need to be considered before saying they are "franchise" worthy and should be taken over other highly skilled players at other positions.

Was Haskins drafted as our "franchise" QB and picked ahead of Sweat given everything we know now?

We just have to differentiate 

 

You don't just draft a QB to draft them. 2019 was a perfect example of this. The QB class behind Murray was trash. We picked Haskins because he was a QB and the owner liked how he went to Bullis. Do those sound like remotely good reasons to draft anyone??

 

Now a QB after a full and fair evaluation that you think has the talent to be a franzhise QB, you take. Sometimes you miss that is life. What the Cardinals did with Rosen then Murray was the smartest difficult decision I have seen a franchise make in quite some time.

 

I would actually be happy with any of the top 4 QBs coming to us, although I've always thought Ohio State QBs were overrated (yes even before Haskins).

1 minute ago, Sellersfan said:

This reminds me of the "cult of Colt Brennan" group a few years ago on here.

What the severe split here on Wilson..?

 

Hope you aren't comparing the 2 as QB prospects

[Sellersfan]

2 minutes ago, Skins199021 said:

What the severe split here on Wilson..?

 

Hope you aren't comparing the 2 as QB prospects

Definitely not comparing the 2 as QB prospects.

I remember a group of Extremeskins fans fell in love with him as a dark horse QB prospect. Some of it legit, some of it satire because of Snyder, Vinny and Zorn. It was a vocal group. Obviously we all wished him well, sucks how his career went for him. 

[Skinsinparadise]

19 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

I didn't mean 'or else' but yeah i could have worded that differently.  I actually have A LOT of confidence in Smith, so if we went that route, I would have a lot of confidence in the pick and wouldn't be calling for his job if he ended up being wrong.  I just meant that those guys are going to be successful (and I actually called Sewell this year's Chase Young too, lol great minds huh?) so Wilson better be the guy you believe in the most.  If you're not willing to hitch your wagon to him, attach your name to him, then you don't pull that trigger when there is that much talent on the board. 

 

Where we end up drafting to me is key. 

 

I wish I can recall how Portis worded it but I thought once on the radio he articulated why this franchise can't win I thought in a perfectly succint way.  My takeaway from listening to him is that we are often bad but rarely stink.  And to turn around a franchise its much easiest if you stink because you can load up on elite players and especially if you find that QB.

 

Lets say we finish at #2 or #3. IMO you got to exploit that rare opportunity versus just assume you will be back there the following year and again you will have three super prospects at QB.  Portis IMO is right.  We've been the type of team that's more likely to pick 5-10 then the 2nd pick in the draft. 

 

Vinny is dumb but he's not IMO wrong on this point.  When asked why couldn't they win?  He summed it up by saying they could never find the QB.

 

Aside from the Dan driven dysfunction, I think the subplot line if they did a 30-30 on the demise of this franchise it would certainly devote part of the show on their failures at QB.  And I would just about guarantee it wouldn't be instead about them finding the right QBs but failing to give them killer supporting casts. 

 

[OVCChairman]

31 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Where we end up drafting to me is key. 

 

I wish I can recall how Portis worded it but I thought once on the radio he articulated why this franchise can't win I thought in a perfectly succint way.  My takeaway from listening to him is that we are often bad but rarely stink.  And to turn around a franchise its much easiest if you stink because you can load up on elite players and especially if you find that QB.

 

Lets say we finish at #2 or #3. IMO you got to exploit that rare opportunity versus just assume you will be back there the following year and again you will have three super prospects at QB.  Portis IMO is right.  We've been the type of team that's more likely to pick 5-10 then the 2nd pick in the draft. 

 

Vinny is dumb but he's not IMO wrong on this point.  When asked why couldn't they win?  He summed it up by saying they could never find the QB.

 

Aside from the Dan driven dysfunction, I think the subplot line if they did a 30-30 on the demise of this franchise it would certainly devote part of the show on their failures at QB.  And I would just about guarantee it wouldn't be instead about them finding the right QBs but failing to give them killer supporting casts. 

 

 

 

That's fair, but to be honest we haven't exactly built a team around the QB.  Looking at the scope of the NFL as a whole, you can see success in multiple ways.  Look at Pittsburgh, Big Ben was picked no. 11 overall.  I'm not one to sit here and bank on that 5th round QB, I understand those are the exception.  The problem is we have had bad evaluation.... not bad options.

 

Look at the 2006 NFL Draft... the first 2 rounds of QBs were Vince Young, Matt Leinhart, Jay Cutler, Kellen Clemons, and Tavaris Jackson.  

2007: Jamarcus Russell, Brady Quinn, Kevin Kolb, John Beck, Drew Stanton

 

In 2010 we picked 4th, ultimately taking Trent Williams.  In that draft Bradford went first, Tebow went 25th.  

 

There are a ton of factors, but I think our biggest factor about not finding a QB has not been not picking in the top 2.. it's been who has been the one picking.