2021 Draft Order / Tracker: Current Pick #19

[Skinsinparadise]

31 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

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.

 

It's a different point.  I am not saying you can't find a top QB without getting the top two QB prospects. But the odds are better that when you do that you end up with Christian Ponder or Blaine Gabbert than D. Watson when you do it.

 

Haskins, Ramsey, Campbell weren't considered can't miss prospects or freaks at that position.  Kyler Murray was.  Andrew Luck was.  Cam Newton was.  And if we aren't fishing in that pool, its not shocking that we miss out.  

 

Maybe Kyle Trask or Matt Jones ends up better than Justin Fields.  Anything is possible.  But I just wouldn't bet on it.   it's all about playing the odds.

 

[Koolblue13]

2 hours ago, El Mexican said:

 

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

 

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

Ok. Weird. Looks like you're opinion is a posted article and comes off a bit like all caps yelling. Whatever. Didn't know that was a thing.

[Warhead36]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

It's a different point.  I am not saying you can't find a top QB without getting the top two QB prospects. But the odds are better that when you do that you end up with Christian Ponder or Blaine Gabbert than D. Watson when you do it.

 

Haskins, Ramsey, Campbell weren't considered can't miss prospects or freaks at that position.  Kyler Murray was.  Andrew Luck was.  Cam Newton was.  And if we aren't fishing in that pool, its not shocking that we miss out.  

 

Maybe Kyle Trask or Matt Jones ends up better than Justin Fields.  Anything is possible.  But I just wouldn't bet on it.   it's all about playing the odds.

 

^^this exactly

 

People keep pointing out how you can get franchise QBs with later picks and yes that is absolutely true. But its all about maximizing your %s. The higher you pick, the better your chances. Simple as that.

[Darrell Green Fan]

8 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said:

This franchise is on its last legs. The Rivera era fails; that’s it for Dan.

 

He will be left with a team that draws a couple of thousand actual fans. The rest will be fans of the other team. No one will give a damn what this Team does.

 

So, Rivera must succeed.

 

We have hit rock bottom more often than a geologist.  If he fails we will still be here, just as we have been through all the rest of this crap.  I honesly tried last season, I had had enough and was looking at the Ravens. But it just didn't stick, you can't just throw out 50 years of fandom.  

[Warhead36]

We were rock bottom in 2009 as well. Remember Swinging Gate? Three years later we got RG3 and Redskin-Mania was at a high it hadn't been since 1991.

 

Its all about the QB. Period.

[PartyPosse]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Haskins, Ramsey, Campbell weren't considered can't miss prospects or freaks at that position.  Kyler Murray was.  Andrew Luck was.  Cam Newton was.  And if we aren't fishing in that pool, its not shocking that we miss out.  

Jameis Winston was... Marcus Mariota was... Sam Darnold was... Josh Rosen was... Baker Mayfield was... Jake Locker was... Mark Sanchez was... Vince Young was... 

[El Mexican]

2 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

Ok. Weird. Looks like you're opinion is a posted article and comes off a bit like all caps yelling. Whatever. Didn't know that was a thing.

 

Sorry. Rest assured I'm the one doing the writing, not copying from anywhere.

Not yelling or anything. It's just my vision starts to fade after 10+ posts with huge text walls of ant-sized fonts 🤓

[Sellersfan]

1 hour ago, Warhead36 said:

We were rock bottom in 2009 as well. Remember Swinging Gate? Three years later we got RG3 and Redskin-Mania was at a high it hadn't been since 1991.

 

Its all about the QB. Period.

2009 was waaaaay worse! Swinging gate and the play caller was brought in from a bingo hall. That was our “maroon and black” era.

[Skins199021]

2 hours ago, PartyPosse said:

Jameis Winston was... Marcus Mariota was... Sam Darnold was... Josh Rosen was... Baker Mayfield was... Jake Locker was... Mark Sanchez was... Vince Young was... 

actually no not really

 

Over the years the truly consensus franchise changing QB prospects have been Lawrence (to be), Burrow, Tua (pending health going in), Murray (debatable), Stafford and Luck. And they All went #1, except Tua. 

 

Sanchez and Bradford are about a tier behind, but there was plenty of debate about the both of them.

 

People like Lamar Jackson, Mahomes, Watson there was plenty of debate about and no consensus on.

 

Everyone else there was a lot of debate among scouts of whether they should be actual first rounders or not, or no real consensus (and that includes Herbert this year).

[PartyPosse]

33 minutes ago, Skins199021 said:

actually no not really

 

Over the years the truly consensus franchise changing QB prospects have been Lawrence (to be), Burrow, Tua (pending health going in), Murray (debatable), Stafford and Luck. And they All went #1, except Tua. 

 

Sanchez and Bradford are about a tier behind, but there was plenty of debate about the both of them.

 

People like Lamar Jackson, Mahomes, Watson there was plenty of debate about and no consensus on.

 

Everyone else there was a lot of debate among scouts of whether they should be actual first rounders or not, or no real consensus (and that includes Herbert this year).

I mean if we’re talking about guys in the last ten years that came in without questions, Luck is pretty much it. Everyone else had questions. 

[Warhead36]

I remember Bradford being considered a slam dunk. I was so sad we sucked in 09 but didn't suck enough to get the #1 pick.

[Riggo#44]

4 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

We were rock bottom in 2009 as well.

We're at rock bottom when Leslie Shepherd tells us we're at rock bottom.

[OVCChairman]

6 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

It's a different point.  I am not saying you can't find a top QB without getting the top two QB prospects. But the odds are better that when you do that you end up with Christian Ponder or Blaine Gabbert than D. Watson when you do it.

 

Haskins, Ramsey, Campbell weren't considered can't miss prospects or freaks at that position.  Kyler Murray was.  Andrew Luck was.  Cam Newton was.  And if we aren't fishing in that pool, its not shocking that we miss out.  

 

Maybe Kyle Trask or Matt Jones ends up better than Justin Fields.  Anything is possible.  But I just wouldn't bet on it.   it's all about playing the odds.

 

 

I get that, and you're right, if we were picking no. 1 overall this year, the chances of us getting a legit qb would be close to 100%... that's an inarguable convo..  

 

I will just say i trust the current evaluators far more than those of the past, so if that guy happens to be there later than 1 or 2, I feel these guys have a better shot at finding him.

[PartyPosse]

I remember when Christian Hackenberg was supposed to be the next big thing. The reality is you can still succeed if a DE doesn’t live up to expectations but you simply cannot if a QB doesn’t. You better be damn sure when you draft one.

[IrepDC]

18 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

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. 

..and Big Ben, Mahomes, Lamar Jackson, Deshaun Watson, Rodgers. Imagine making these arguments, in order to slam Haskins, when these players exist. Mid to late 1st round QBs are elite just as often, if not more often, in recent history. You listed the mid to late round busts, but there are just as many top 5. That debate has no weight. Hype beasts just believe the top 5 is where you have to get an elite QB. Think of the top 10 QBs in the league now. I bet you 8 out of 10 were drafted after the top 10 picks. 

[Ashburn Dave]

12 hours ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

We have hit rock bottom more often than a geologist.  If he fails we will still be here, just as we have been through all the rest of this crap.  I honestly tried last season, I had had enough and was looking at the Ravens. But it just didn't stick, you can't just throw out 50 years of fandom.  

 

I wouldn't be too sure that fans will flock back.  Now that we lost our name and identity there are a lot of us ready to move on for good even after 50 years of fandom.

[Darrell Green Fan]

6 hours ago, PartyPosse said:

I remember when Christian Hackenberg was supposed to be the next big thing. The reality is you can still succeed if a DE doesn’t live up to expectations but you simply cannot if a QB doesn’t. You better be damn sure when you draft one.

I'm assuming you meant when Hackenberg signed with Penn State because nobody thought the Jets got a franchise QB in the 2nd round with a guy who hadn't been good since high school.  

49 minutes ago, Ashburn Dave said:

 

I wouldn't be too sure that fans will flock back.  Now that we lost our name and identity there are a lot of us ready to move on for good even after 50 years of fandom.

 

Well you are posting on the team board, a team without a name, so there's that.  If you chose to move on would it be because of the name or the losing?  

[Skinsinparadise]

9 hours ago, IrepDC said:

..and Big Ben, Mahomes, Lamar Jackson, Deshaun Watson, Rodgers. Imagine making these arguments, in order to slam Haskins, when these players exist. Mid to late 1st round QBs are elite just as often, if not more often, in recent history. You listed the mid to late round busts, but there are just as many top 5. That debate has no weight. Hype beasts just believe the top 5 is where you have to get an elite QB. Think of the top 10 QBs in the league now. I bet you 8 out of 10 were drafted after the top 10 picks. 

 

There was nuance in my posts which you missed including making the case that yeah players picked later can and have been successful like you are doing here.  But I'll play along.  "Perceived" was the operative word in my the part of the post you quoted. 

 

Generally if you have a consensus of scouts seeing a dude as an elite talent -- he will typically not fall to the mid to late round of the first round.  As to them being wrong about it and players picked later succeeding -- yeah I know it and so does everyone else, who doesn't?   Of course it happens.

 

My point was a dude who is considered a freak like lets say Justin Fields is more likely to be successful than someone who isn't considered like that ala Kyle Trask.  And there is a reason why a dude like Fields tend to go higher in the draft than a dude like Trask.

 

There are plenty of studies on this.  The higher you pick the more likely your pick is a success.  I am not bringing up a revolutionary point.  When you pick a freak type at the top of the draft like Cam Newton you are more likely to be successful than picking later in the first and taking your Jason Campbell type.  I'll liven your point up even more -- Tony Romo was undrafted, Brady was in the 6th round, the best QB from the 2012 draft was in the third round.  We are all well aware.  But its about playing the odds.   

 

Heck there are more QBs who are successful in the 2nd round and beyond than are in the top 5.    But think about the reasons for that for a second.  And the reason for it isn't because a dude drafted with the first pick in the draft is less likely to be successful than one drafted lower but about very basic math. In short, a pool of 20 players are more likely to have multiple successes than a pool of 2 players. 

 

But the teams picking out of that pool of 20 players or whatever later in the draft are much more likely to find a bust than the team picking among the top 2 players in the draft.  And citing the successes among the larger pool (where you also have a much larger pool of nonsuccesses, too) doesn't defeat that point.  It's just basic stats with the point being that more players beats less players.  I do agree that more beats less but it has no relevance to the point I was making.   And also we aren't grabbing every QB in the bigger pool of QBs after the top QBs, we are typically just taking one of those guys not all of them.   It's one versus one.  Not one versus everyone else. 

 

https://www.milehighreport.com/2017/6/28/15880748/success-rates-of-drafted-quarterbacks

 

QB's drafted 1990-2016
pick	success %
1-16	81%
17-32	65%
2nd round	48%
3rd round	25%
4th round	13%
5th round	6%
6th round	16%
7th round	6%

 

[Skinsinparadise]

10 hours ago, OVCChairman said:

 

I get that, and you're right, if we were picking no. 1 overall this year, the chances of us getting a legit qb would be close to 100%... that's an inarguable convo..  

 

I will just say i trust the current evaluators far more than those of the past, so if that guy happens to be there later than 1 or 2, I feel these guys have a better shot at finding him.

 

I am a big Kyle Smith guy.  I'll trust whatever they do.  My larger point is if you are picking top 5 you got a better shot of success than picking a QB later in the draft.    I'd put my money on Fields, Lawrence and probably Wilson over Trask, Jones.  Lance being the wildcard -- raw talent, I think boom-bust prospect. 

 

But I trust Kyle to figure that out.  If you want that potential Mahomes type where you pick a raw talent and bet on their upside -- Lance would be that type.   So if people want to make that argument.  I get that.  Rolling the dice on a raw talent and maybe striking gold.  Sure it happens.  And also it doesn't happen.

 

As I was just making the point to someone else and I thought of a new way to explain it here.

 

The odds that you find a stud among:  Lawrence, Fields, Wilson

 

Are better than:  Monds, Ridder, Trask, Jones, Franks, Newman, Ehlinger, Purdy, Book, Morgam, Crum, Costello, Mills, etc

 

Would it shock me that 1 of the three top prospects bust.  And lets say 3 of the 2nd type tiers are successful?  Nope.  But that is more of lottery play.  And also the word success is relative.  I am not looking for the next Minshew but the next Brees caliber, great QB.  

 

Are we likely to be the team that gets the more lottery part right in the next grouping especially if its a lofty goal like getting a top ten QB?  Where we end up with a Cousins or Gus and not a Campbell, Haskins, Ramsey, Hackel, Brennan, Husak, Hamden, Palmer, Sudfeld, Daniels, etc.    And plenty would argue Kirk and Gus weren't/aren't top 10 QBs.   I think we can safely say we didn't find our Brees type by fishing in the 2nd-5th tier pool, yet.

 

But yeah if Kyle Smith is telling Rivera lets say Zach Wilson is overrated and teams are sleeping on Mac Jones talent and we can nail him in the 2nd, i'd ride with it.  My point though is i agree with Portis' thought which is you are more likely to find that elite talent when you go high up in the draft. 

15 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

^^this exactly

 

People keep pointing out how you can get franchise QBs with later picks and yes that is absolutely true. But its all about maximizing your %s. The higher you pick, the better your chances. Simple as that.

 

Yep.   It's about playing the odds and just using basic math.  The argument that you can just as likely find your franchise QB later in the draft, etc.  That argument would hold if it worked like this:

 

You compare taking a QB early versus taking a different QB in every round after the first.  Yep if you do the later you are more likely going to be successful.  But that's now how it works.

 

So if you take a Qb #1 he's less likely to be successful then if you took a QB in every round after that.  But obviously no one does that.  If you take a QB #1 he's more likely to be successful than one taking later in the draft.    Is it guarantee?  Of course not.  Even Lawrence can end up a bust or injured or whatever.  But its about playing the odds.  And yeah I'd bet on Lawrence being a top QB over lets say Trask, Monds, Jones.  But if you gave me the whole pool of every QB taken?  Then it gets more interesting.  But the point has no relevance to our drafting because we wouldn't be taking EVERY other Qb in the pool, we'd be taking one. 

 

Combining ALL QBs taken after the top picks of course will defeat the smaller pool of QBs picked higher in the draft.  Same goes for any position.  But the point proves nothing aside from "more" beats "less".  And that's before even delving into my larger point which I was making which is I am not just looking for a competent QB.  I am not after the next Daniel Jones.  

[Skinsinparadise]

14 hours ago, PartyPosse said:

Jameis Winston was... Marcus Mariota was... Sam Darnold was... Josh Rosen was... Baker Mayfield was... Jake Locker was... Mark Sanchez was... Vince Young was... 

 

Not true.  But this point has zero relevance to my point regardless. 

 

To play along, you can find a draft geek here and there who is in love with any prospect.  But can't miss?  Mariotta?  Locker.  Sanchez. Wow.  Young was hyped perhaps to that degree, Darnold almost to the same extent (but some had question marks on him) the others had plenty of question marks.    But my point isn't that QBs can't bust high in the draft.  The point is about playing the odds.  

 

My point is do the perceived freakish talent top QB prospects have a more likely chance to suceed then name that random other dude. It wasn't no guy drafts high busts.  We all watch football and more than get that there are no guarantees especially at QB no matter where you pick them.  

 

And like I was saying in another post.  It's not about picking high verus picking every other quarterback combined.  We aren't picking 7 quarterbacks in the draft.  Are the odds just as good for us to take some dude later in the draft lets say Kyle Trask than it would be Justin Fields?  To argue my point directly -- you would be saying heck yes that your chances of success would be just as good.

 

 

7 hours ago, PartyPosse said:

I remember when

 

was supposed to be the next big thing. The reality is you can still succeed if a DE doesn’t live up to expectations but you simply cannot if a QB doesn’t. You better be damn sure when you draft one.

 

Why was he drafted in the 2nd round, then?  your point seems to be here about college QBs who were hyped earlly but no so much later in their college career.  Locker would fit that, too.  So would other dudes like Matt Barkley.  But none of it has anything to do with the argument in play

 

Edit:  I saw one of your other posts where you said those QB guys weren't can't miss.   Then we are on the same page on that point.   To run off of that point, every draft isn't equal.  There is nuance as to the idea of a QB who is freak.  Lawrence and Fields IMO are freaks.  Winston and Mariotta were not freaks.  so yeah in some drafts the top guys mean nothing.  That draft is a perfect example.  So its not about just how high the pick but also what type of pool of QBs you have in that specific draft. 

 

 

[88Comrade2000]

Kyle needs to go. Ron needs to hire someone else to be the personnel guy.

 

As for fans of the team; Dan is on his last legs. The Rivera era fails and there won’t be more than a couple of thousand fans.

This is his last shot to turn things around.

[Skinsinparadise]

10 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Kyle needs to go. Ron needs to hire someone else to be the personnel guy.

 

As for fans of the team; Dan is on his last legs. The Rivera era fails and there won’t be more than a couple of thousand fans.

This is his last shot to turn things around.

 

This post seems to belong in the FO/owner thread.  You probably will get someone to engage with you there on it.  Not sure about how it flows with the QB/pick #3 discussion.

 

I'll just say I disagree with some of your point but I'll take any collateral damage that happens to get rid of Dan but I doubt we get that lucky. 

[El Mexican]

13 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

This is his last shot to turn things around.

 

Sadly, this is true. After the Haskins debacle, patience has evaporated.

That bad pick set us back another 3-5 years. Rivera is here to fix that mess. Maybe.

 

Which brings me to my principal point:

 

Y'all are expecting a new and shiny QB to come here and transform the entire team.

But you forget that no player arrives here in a vacum. He gets here in a particular context that

places enormous pressure on the rookie QB because other holes on the team have been left unresolved.

 

[Skinsinparadise]

2 minutes ago, El Mexican said:

 

 

 

Y'all are expecting a new and shiny QB to come here and transform the entire team.

 

 

Every new Qb brought here isn't "new and shiny".  Plenty didn't see Haskins that way.    Certainly new but they weren't all shiny. 

 

I do agree though that Dan's influence is a bane on this organizations.  I think few would disagree with that,

 

 

[kingdaddy]

2 hours ago, Ashburn Dave said:

 

I wouldn't be too sure that fans will flock back.  Now that we lost our name and identity there are a lot of us ready to move on for good even after 50 years of fandom.

Yeah, but where else are we gonna go? Bottom line is that IF this team ever starts winning games the fans will come back and say they never left. I've seen it here in Philly with the Sixers. Once they started winning again, after 4 years of self professed TANKING, they lead the league in fan attendance. This football team is more than a football team to many of us, it's all we've known our entire lives, and we saw how great it was when we were winning Super Bowls. That's what we hang on to. 

Ron Rivera has such an incredible opportunity here to be the greatest thing to hit Washington football since Joe Gibbs....we need him to succeed. I'm not gonna bail on him.....but damn I just wish they would step up and win these games they should win.