Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

2021 Draft Order / Tracker: Current Pick #19


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, FootballZombie said:

 

I'm never mad at someone for wanting to win games rather than lose out, that is just the only way some people know to be fans and that is more than acceptable. to each their own.

 

 

Me either.  I only get mad if those same people get mad at us for it.   To me, it's just different perspectives about the team.  One way isn't superior to the other.  And my psych 101 take of this is if someone is bothered by others rooting for draft position than it likely means they have some cognitive dissonance about their own take of this otherwise why give a crap of how other fans roll?  

 

A good way to bring my take on this point home was a beat guy years back mentioned to Bruce once whether giving up players for picks and or losing for better draft position would help lose the battle to win the war.  It was phrased differently than that but that was the idea.  Bruce's response was something along the lines that's not the Redskins way we don't rebuild, we are about winning now or something like that. 

 

I think it was Sheehan (but don't recall for sure) or some radio talk show host that mentioned it and he goes yeah the Redskins way is a losing way not the winning way.  This isn't the 80s anymore.  Our way means losing and doesn't warrant bragging about the Redskins way.

 

It's sort of the way I see it.  I get the live in the moment idea and being a fan is all about that.  Easy for me to relate to that feeling because it's how I felt most of my life.  But I've changed.  I rooted for losses towards the end of last season for a specific goal and i am back at it again for a specific goal.  If this was the 2015 draft, I wouldn't root for loses.  But this draft can potentially achieve something just like the previous one did.  Some like to generalize drafts as if they are all the same.  But they aren't.   The 2021 draft is looming to be a really unique draft with potentially three dudes who are special at QB. 

 

And in my mind sacraficing temporary joy for the potential of much more joy later makes me a good fan let alone a worse fan.  I just want this team to be really good.  And I refuse to resign myself into small victories if I believed they start and end with them.  I am sick of that.  I haven't checked out even a whit on this team.  I've just come to the realization that Portis is right we don't tend to pick high enough to get the elite players at the right time.  And that's part of the narrative for why this team can't get over the hump.

 

I care more about a dude who could help win games for us for the next 15 years versus feeling some joy for one day in the moment.  I've had enough one day joy moments against Dallas.  It bothers me much more that Dallas have been significantly better than us for a long time.  Fixing that problem long term means more to me than another short term blip of happiness in sea of them dominating us. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Llevron said:

 

 Alex and Kyle are more than good enough to take the hits while we build the rest of the squad. 

 

 

It's amazing to me that this can even be said with a straight face.  I think you may be right, but Kyle just went down for the year and Alex very recently was in a fight for his life due to taking a terrible hit.  Not sure if they can survive or not.  We need a tank just to sit back there for a year or two.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

Maybe we should stop letting our dumb fans impact decision making. Its the same reason Kyle Shanahan and Kirk Cousins got run out of town.


To be fair... Cousins was gone because Allen was a dope and mishandled that whole thing.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KDawg said:

I think 3 QBs are going top 5, could be top 3 depending.

 

I think we win a game or two more.

 

If Cincinnati, Dallas, LAC, the Giants, or Miami finish ahead of us in the Draft, we should be good--barring a trade up--and then hopefully it'll be a team that's enamored with Lance. We need to root for NE, Atl, Det, Car, maybe Minnesota to win a couple more games. I, in no, way, shape, or form want to play well against Carolina.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

If Cincinnati, Dallas, LAC, the Giants, or Miami finish ahead of us in the Draft, we should be good--barring a trade up--and then hopefully it'll be a team that's enamored with Lance. We need to root for NE, Atl, Det, Car, maybe Minnesota to win a couple more games. I, in no, way, shape, or form want to play well against Carolina.

 

I would not assume Dallas and NYG don't draft QB.  Dak is technically a free agent coming off a major injury and Jones has been less than impressive.  If they end up picking 5 - 7 and they're in love with a guy they could take him.  IMHO the only teams TRULY out of the QB market in the draft are Cincy, LAC, and Miami.  Any other team COULD go QB.... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

I would not assume Dallas and NYG don't draft QB.  Dak is technically a free agent coming off a major injury and Jones has been less than impressive.  If they end up picking 5 - 7 and they're in love with a guy they could take him.  IMHO the only teams TRULY out of the QB market in the draft are Cincy, LAC, and Miami.  Any other team COULD go QB.... 

 

I think Cincy out of the QB market, but that injury to Burrow opens the door a crack.  It sounds like there is a chance Burrow misses next season.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterPinstripe said:

Draft position of just some current starting QBs:

 

Drew Brees - 32nd pick

Aaron Rodgers - 24th pick

Patrick Mahomes - 10th pick

Russell Wilson - 75th pick

DeShaun Watson - 12th pick

Ben Roethlisberger - 11th pick

Dak Prescot - 135th pick

Derek Carr - 36th pick

Lamar Jackson - 32nd pick

 

 

Finding a good QB is hard, but we don't have to be drafting 1, 2nd, or even top 5 to be able to find one. So far I am very happy with Kyle Smith and I think he has shown that he could be a guy that can find one outside the top 5.

 

This seems to be the most common rebuttal but it makes no sense as to the math.  Why wouldn't there be more successes for 250 players versus 5?  For any position let alone QB.   If we don't pick top 5.  do we get the next 200 players to choose from?

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, there is no pressure when the Team plays the Cowboys Thursday.  It's a win-win.  If I had to chose, I admit I would prefer the Cowboys to win 50.1% to 49.9%.  OTOH, beating the Cowboys twice in the same year would be quite satisfying.  What I don't want to see is a tie.  Ugh.🤮

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

This seems to be the most common rebuttal but it makes no sense as to the math.  Why wouldn't there be more successes for 250 players versus 5?  For any position let alone QB.   If we don't pick top 5.  do we get the next 200 players to choose from?

 

 

Actually I think it argues the math further... 

 

In all reality, Lawrence has the same number of chances of being a successful NFL QB as Wilson.  1 chance.  Taking Lawrence does not give you MORE chances of the guy being the right guy... Picking 1 overall and picking 10 overall warrant the same number of players, so the odds don't necessarily go up, the size of the pool of players to pick from does.  Now you can evaluate Lawrence vs Wilson and argue that Lawrence is clearly the better prospect, and that he has a different (or better) set of tools in order to be successful, but at the end of the day the evaluation outweighs the pick order.  

 

If you pick no 1 overall, you have 32 first round draft grades to pick from.. not 32 picks to make and hope one gets it right.  If you pick 10th, you may only have 22 first round draft picks to pick from, but you're still only getting 1 player.   The player being successful and impactful is the priority over when they are picked.  Just because we could take Fields at no. 2 does not make him a better QB in the NFL than someone we take at 8.  The pool of players available at 2 is larger, so chances are there are more options, while it's not an exact science, but it's also not completely random.  The player taken 10th in the draft does not mean they will have the 10th best career.  It's not the same players coming out year after year.  Every player entering the draft is new and cannot technically be compared to the player taken in the exact same spot as them the year before, because they are not the same.  If 85% of the no. 1 overall picks are hits, that just means that the evaluators making those picks collectively got it right 85% of the time... not that the no. 1 overall pick has an 85% chance of being successful.... does that make sense? 

 

And i'm not arguing Lawrence vs Wilson... just using current examples. 

Edited by OVCChairman
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

While I don't think the it doesn't matter much where you take the dude argument works.   If there is maybe a small pattern of striking gold outside of the top dudes it could be high beta stock versions of QBs especially with mobility.  Mahomes had freakish ability but was considered raw.  Watson had mega mobility and won in college but there were some concerns over accuracy/turnovers among other things.  Lamar Jackson was a beast with the ball in his hands in college but there were concerns about him as a passer.  Russell Wilson has great numbers in college and obvious mobility but was short.

 

So if I am trying to get lucky and break the mold and pick a QB who isn't regarded among the top 3, then IMO you'd roll the dice on a dude like that with major upside.  The obvious guy who fits that in this draft is Trey Lance.  If you are going deeper in the draft then perhaps someone like Newman, Mond, Ridder.  Guys that have obvious limitiations but if they can put things together and can exploit their mobility they could end up being finds.

 

To me its not really an intellectual debate as to the theory of taking QBs higher versus lower.  And if it were the picking higher argument would win.  Stats prove it.  But I'd presume that Kyle Smith and Ron aren't talking theorticially about QBs as to the 2021 draft.  But it would be more like if for example Kyle Smith thinks Zach Wilson is an A plus QB, he'd pound the table to get him.  If he thinks he is overrated or Lance or whomever is close enough to Wilson, then that would factor.    What happened in the 2015 draft or whatever I doubt is being discussed.  I would presume the draft is very specific to these very specific players. 

 

It doesn't matter how smart Kyle is from the context of he can't just make these QBs good if they aren't.  If he is thinking to himself Mac Jones is as good as Fields or Wilson then great.  But there is just as good a shot that Kyle thinks you got only so many good Qbs in this draft and after that the upside isn't there or they are major wildcards, etc.   Or whatever.  But my point I doubt its theoritical discussion. It would be more something like compare Zach Wilson to Mac Jones. 

 

 

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2017/nfl-draft-round-round-qb-study-1994-2016

The first round has produced 953 more starts than the other six rounds combined. Even the winning percentage dips after the second round, but of course we see a huge upswing in the sixth round thanks to Tom Brady and the Patriots. In fact, Brady has as many playoff starts (34) as the other 214 quarterbacks drafted in rounds two to seven have playoff wins (34) since 1994. We'll get to the sixth round later, but it should be noted that 43.8 percent of the quarterbacks drafted in rounds six or seven failed to play in a game.

 

 

...Every NFL draft now comes with a reminder that Tom Brady was a sixth-round pick, yet among the 92 quarterbacks drafted in the fifth round or later since 2001, only three have thrown at least 1,000 passes: Derek Anderson, Matt Cassel, and Ryan Fitzpatrick. That trio's "success" is driven mostly by their hard-to-explain continued employment rather than the actual success of their passes.

 

...Teams are desperate to find a quarterback, but will Prescott's instant success really change anything in that process? The last few years suggest it won't if we use Russell Wilson as a direct comparison. Not only do they have a comparable playing style, but Wilson and Prescott are the only quarterbacks not drafted in the top 40 since 1978 to start all 16 games as rookies.

 

So when your team drafts a quarterback in the fourth round next month, please do not expect him to be Prescott. If anything, he is more likely to be Cardale Jones, the Ohio State quarterback who five of our staff members (including myself) predicted back in September 2015 would be the No. 1 pick in the 2016 draft. He actually went 139th, four spots after Prescott, to Buffalo.

No one has ever said that finding a quarterback was supposed to be easy.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

In all reality, Lawrence has the same number of chances of being a successful NFL QB as Wilson.  1 chance.  Taking Lawrence does not give you MORE chances of the guy being the right guy... Picking 1 overall and picking 10 overall warrant the same number of players, so the odds don't necessarily go up, the size of the pool of players to pick from does.  Now you can evaluate Lawrence vs Wilson and argue that Lawrence is clearly the better prospect, and that he has a different (or better) set of tools in order to be successful, but at the end of the day the evaluation outweighs the pick order.  

 

Sure.  The evaluation beats the spot you take the player.   The reason why i brought in quantity isn't to make my point but to hit back on the rebuttal of it.  The rebuttal seems to be an ocean of players beats the small pond of players so why fixate on the pound?  And the answer is the ocean is shared by ALL teams, not just one, so the point doesn't apply.  We aren't given an ocean of players.  it's not we got Zach Wilson or instead we can have Trask, Mond, Jones, Newman, Frank, Book, Ridder, Lance, Purdy, Ehlinger on and on combined.  yeah if we got 12 quarterbacks I might put my money on that, too.  But that's not how it works.  So yeah I would take Lawrence versus the option of taking one of those others QBs.  The argument that we continue to get is to compare all of these guys versus the one.   That's fine. But that's fantasy.  That's not how the draft will work in reality. 

 

6 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

  Every player entering the draft is new and cannot technically be compared to the player taken in the exact same spot as them the year before, because they are not the same.  If 85% of the no. 1 overall picks are hits, that just means that the evaluators making those picks collectively got it right 85% of the time... not that the no. 1 overall pick has an 85% chance of being successful.... does that make sense? 

 

I've made a similar point in a different way.

 

The way I made the same point is not all drafts are equal.   The 2012 draft and lets say the 2021 draft doesn't feel the same as for example the 2015 draft for QB.  Mariotta and Winston aren't nearly as hyped as the potential #3 QB in this 2021 draft let alone to Lawrence.  So its not that i am locked into the top QB or bust but it depends on the specific draft.  The way I articulated my point when I explained it at length was picking a very hyped QB with mega attributes early in the draft, or a 2nd one too who fits that mold versus name the QB later in the draft.  Who has the better odds?

 

And I am not saying hype matters but assuming in the cases where the scouts believe the hype is warranted.  My point is for argument's sake lets say Kyle Smith is as high on the top 3 qbs in this draft as the hype.  And he grades them all as lets say 95 plus players.  And has the next QB rated as an 82.  That's what am getting at it.   It matters.  I am not saying he can't be wrong.  But the odds are better that he's right. 

 

The rebuttal to this seems to be lets consider the 15 QBs who aren't picked top 2.  You might end up with a success or two without even having to expend a top pick so why sweat the top pick?  The point they convieniently ignore if while they are correct that there indeed might be a surprise success in that mix, why do you think you will be the team that guesses right or for that matter will have the opportunity to even draft said player?    That's a wild roll of the dice.  And yes there will be a winner or maybe 2 later in the draft but most will lose out on this game.  And this isn't a theory, its proven statisitically.  And yeah you can strike out shooting high too.  But your odds are better.  Simple as that.

 

Also we are deep enough into this process to get beyond just theortically debating this.  To make it more fun and more similar to a real debate of a FO, why not debate actual players like hey I think Mac Jones will be better or just as good as Justin Fields or name that comparison.  Because that's what our FO is likely doing versus arguing theory on it. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Sure.  The evaluation beats the spot you take the player.   The reason why i brought in quantity isn't to make my point but to hit back on the rebuttal of it.  The rebuttal seems to be an ocean of players beats the small pond of players so why fixate on the pound?  And the answer is the ocean is shared by ALL teams, not just one, so the point doesn't apply.  We aren't given an ocean of players.  it's not we got Zach Wilson or instead we can have Trask, Mond, Jones, Newman, Frank, Book, Ridder, Lance, Purdy, Ehlinger on and on combined.  yeah if we got 12 quarterbacks I might put my money on that, too.  But that's not how it works.  So yeah I would take Lawrence versus the option of taking one of those others QBs.  The argument that we continue to get is to compare all of these guys versus the one.   That's fine. But that's fantasy.  That's not how the draft will work in reality. 

 

Also we are deep enough into this process to get beyond just theortically debating this.  To make it more fun and more similar to a real debate of a FO, why not debate actual players like hey I think Mac Jones will be better or just as good as Justin Fields or name that comparison.  Because that's what our FO is likely doing versus arguing theory on it. 

 

 

 

 

 

I actually agree with a ton of this, and the same point can be argued on both sides of conversation.  I refuse to put any real expectation on a 5th round QB.... but I also want to take a 2nd half of the draft QB in just about every draft in case you do hit... see Desmond Ridder.  That does not mean I go into a draft with the idea "well we can get a 5th rounder, because that's where Tom Brady was drafted so it's that easy."  Come on... no.  I don't even follow the Russell Wilson template, but until you have a starting QB, keep looking for your starting QB.

 

I do agree that a talented QB is unlikely to slip beyond the first round, but equally I believe there will CAN be top talented QBs in all levels of that first round... which is why you will see me reference Ben Roethlisberger (a player from a non power 5 school that was drafted in the first) far more frequently than I will someone like Russell Wilson or Dak Prescott.  Those two are exceptions... Ben is closer to the 'rule' if there is one.  That there are talented QBs from smaller schools that still are first round grades, that may or may not be a consensus top 2 pick... like Zach Wilson.  That the evaluator that can prioritize Ben Roethlisberger (11th overall) over J.P. Losman (22nd overall) will be the difference maker in the building of a successful team.  Is Zach Wilson on a similar trajectory of Big Ben, or Losman?  Same with Trey Lance, Kyle Trask, and Mac Jones.  Do I wish we could have Lawrence?  Sure... but we can't.. unless something crazy happens, so the emphasis is on Kyle Smith as an evaluator.

 

 

I actually like looking at it deeper than just theory or hypothetical.  I'm not going to lie, I don't get the warm and fuzzies with Fields.  He scares me.  I don't THINK it's the OSU connection, because in all reality it means nothing, but something just doesn't get me excited.  I can't explain it.  He checks pretty much every box... just a gut thing for no arguable or legitimate reason... Zach Wilson gets me excited though... it could be his story... I like underdogs, and he's kind of that unexpected shiny toy, so admittedly I may be falling into that trap.  Lance scares me, because he's so raw.  He may end up being a legit x-factor in the NFL but he scares me.  I see a freak athlete who hits a lot of home runs to wide open receivers, a lot of time on his first read.  I worry that he's going to have that mentality of 1 read and go... and he's gonna get beat up.  That said, he is what i was referencing earlier... small school QB... so who knows. 

 

I like Trask a lot, but he telegraphs play action.  He keeps his eyes down field when he's going to pull the ball.  A lot of that is likely RPO read so he's looking down field, but I would like to see him run play action in a traditional sense where he's turning his back to the defense, then has to reset and identify what's going on quickly.  Just a little quirk.  He trusts his playmakers, and he trusts his throws.  Kyle Pitts is arguably the best player on the offense, and even when covered, Trask is willing to put the ball where his playmakers need it to be.  

 

Edited by OVCChairman
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

I actually agree with a ton of this, and the same point can be argued on both sides of conversation.  I refuse to put any real expectation on a 5th round QB.... but I also want to take a 2nd half of the draft QB in just about every draft in case you do hit... see Desmond Ridder.  That does not mean I go into a draft with the idea "well we can get a 5th rounder, because that's where Tom Brady was drafted so it's that easy."  Come on... no.  I don't even follow the Russell Wilson template, but until you have a starting QB, keep looking for your starting QB.

 

 

I agree with this.  The keep shooting for QB's in every draft until you get one approach.    As you know, Ridder is one of my guys.  Would I bet he becomes a successful QB?  Nope if i went to Vegas I'd put money on bust.  I also like to a lesser extent but close to Ridder -- Newman and Mond.  Do I think they end up successful?  Nope.  do they have a chance?  Sure.   Everything being equal if i am going with a roll of the dice type flier QB, I prefer the strongish arm combined with mobile types.

 

The way some are arguing here their point is predicated on us having Ridder, Newman, Mond and add another 10 QBs.  And then stack that against Lawrence. Yeah that would be interesting but it's fantasy land.  

1 hour ago, OVCChairman said:

 

I do agree that a talented QB is unlikely to slip beyond the first round, but equally I believe there will CAN be top talented QBs in all levels of that first round... which is why you will see me reference Ben Roethlisberger (a player from a non power 5 school that was drafted in the first) far more frequently than I will someone like Russell Wilson or Dak Prescott.  Those two are exceptions... Ben is closer to the 'rule' if there is one.  That there are talented QBs from smaller schools that still are first round grades, that may or may not be a consensus top 2 pick... like Zach Wilson.  That the evaluator that can prioritize Ben Roethlisberger (11th overall) over J.P. Losman (22nd overall) will be the difference maker in the building of a successful team. 

 

 

My point wasn't just a talented QB.  My point was the freakish talents.  The Kyler Murrays, the Cam Newtons, Andrew Lucks, Trevor Lawrences.  Burrow wasn't a freakish talent but his ball placement ability was.    No one was talking up Trubisky as freakish or Winston, etc. 

 

Big Ben was pretty hyped at the time.  He was a surprise slip.  As was Aaron Rodgers.  I don't think you see those type of slips in the draft for QBs that we saw back then.  The model can also change over time.  Russell Wilson was considered mega talented but too short.  He proved people wrong setting up the stage for someone like Kyler Murray who perhaps 10 years ago might not have gone in the first. 

 

1 hour ago, OVCChairman said:

 

That there are talented QBs from smaller schools that still are first round grades, that may or may not be a consensus top 2 pick... like Zach Wilson.  That the evaluator that can prioritize Ben Roethlisberger (11th overall) over J.P. Losman (22nd overall) will be the difference maker in the building of a successful team.  Is Zach Wilson on a similar trajectory of Big Ben, or Losman?  Same with Trey Lance, Kyle Trask, and Mac Jones.  Do I wish we could have Lawrence?  Sure... but we can't.. unless something crazy happens, so the emphasis is on Kyle Smith as an evaluator.

 

 

I love Zach Wilson.  My feistiness on this point is predicated on him and Fields.  I personally think in other draft years they would be the first pick in the draft.  So part of my angst on this point is I don't think we'd ever be in position to get the first pick in the draft and get that projected freak QB.  Heck I think it is a long shot for us to ever get the 2nd most regarded freakish talent.  Every now and then a draft has two guys that scream to me franchise QB.  This draft uniquely screams to me that there are 3.  So for me its tough to shrug that off and work off of the next group where none of those in the next group I love. 

 

The NFL changes over time.  A guy like Zach Wilson years back might not have gone super early.  But now there is such a heightened desire for Qbs who are mobile and can make off script plays -- that's Zach Wilson.  And it's not dudes like Mac Jones or Kyle Trask. 

 

I like Kyle as an evaluator but we have no idea what he thinks of this class.  If he sees it like me then he is likely likewise sweating losing draft position.  If he sees it differently cool.  But even if he loved one of the 2nd tier types, how do we know he lands that dude?  

 

1 hour ago, OVCChairman said:

 

I like Trask a lot, but he telegraphs play action.  He keeps his eyes down field when he's going to pull the ball.  A lot of that is likely RPO read so he's looking down field, but I would like to see him run play action in a traditional sense where he's turning his back to the defense, then has to reset and identify what's going on quickly.  Just a little quirk.  He trusts his playmakers, and he trusts his throws.  Kyle Pitts is arguably the best player on the offense, and even when covered, Trask is willing to put the ball where his playmakers need it to be.  

 

 

To me Trask is the prototype example of I'd rather them not draft a QB than force a pick.  He isn't mobile, he isn't shifty in the pocket, he doesn't have a strong arm.  He's a try hard dude without any special traits.  Some compare him stylistically to Burrow (most though don't) but I would say Burrow still has slightly more arm strength and has much better pocket presence.

 

But that's just my guess.  Will see.  But I might cringe if they took him in the first round.  I think he's a 2nd round QB -- best comparison IMO is Andy Dalton and even that I wouldn't bank on.

 

I would despise taking Kyle Trask in the first round.  To me I wouldn't get that point of it either.  I don't see him as an upgrade on Kyle Allen.  But again if Kyle Smith loves him, I'd be surprised, but I'd go on that ride while holding my nose and I'd try to keep an open mind.   If they took him in the 2nd i wouldn't hate it but i wouldn't love it either. 

 

If I had anyone else in the first if its not Wilson or Fields it would be Lance.  I am the one who posted the detailed report on Lance on the draft thread where I talked up how raw he was.  I wasn't in love.  Yet, at least he has some special traits.  If I had to pick a formula for surprise successes at QB of late it would be the high variance QBs types with some freakish talent.  Lance is raw but has freakish talent. Trask IMO has nothing that even resembles freakish talent. 

 

But anyway that's just my opinion. 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

I tend to agree about Trask in the 2nd... hes not a top 10 pick to me but what do I know.  If we were down around 25 and you want to talk about that 5th year.. we can talk, but no. 8 overall?  I think I would rather have jamar chase

 

I got family and friends who went to UF.   They worship Trask.  I just have a hard time getting into him.  He clearly is a very good college QB but i don't think his skill set translates well to the pros.  Granted Shanny among others tout intangibles for QBs as being the great unknown but also critical to success.  And you never know a dude like Trask could work his way until being special.  My gut says no.  But who knows?  I think its part of the reason why their research on these prospects and interviews are key especially for QB. 

 

Personally if I had to pick between Trask and Jones, I'd go Jones because IMO he has more arm talent.   But I have reservations about both. 

 

To me though this discussion which involves specific players is interesting and much more so than theorticial debates about where is it the best to pick a QB.  Don't get me wrong, I am absolutely sure that the point I and others have made is correct on it.  The stats prove it.  But it's still somewhat boring to me considering we got real players that matter as to the specific permutations in this draft.    We can actually play out the chess game here hypotetically which to me is fun. 

 

Like I said, FO's right now I doubt care about past drafts when making a decision about the 2021 draft.  I think they are likely knee deep in these prospects specifically.  And granted we aren't experts.  But heck we all talk football topics.   So why not this?

 

And to me the more fun discussion isn't can Kyle Smith strike gold in the 2nd round in theory because he's a smart dude.  I don't really find that point 100% relevant because the premise of that is that for sure he must love a 2nd tier guy and also he will land whoever his target is.  Both variables are possible but are also unknown.   Maybe Kyle Smith doesn't think highly of any of the 2nd tier QBs.  Or maybe a guy he really likes in that 2nd tier goes in the late first before our pick?

 

To me the more interesting discussion is do we think Mac Jones and Kyle Trask or name that dude is close enough in talent to Wilson or whatever apples to apples comparison we decide to make.   

 

 

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not just the 80s when it comes to QB.  The last and only time we took a franchise QB-type in the first round was 1937. Since then we have gone for the QB-type 13 times and the best that ever happened might be that we turned Norm Snead into SJ9. That is a multi-decade issue.  Please stop making the BS argument that it is not the 80s anymore. Beyond Baugh and SJ9, our best QBs have been Kilmer (70s), Theismann (big years were the 80s but he was 70s), Rypien (80s) and Cousins (just last decade).  The argument is that long-term success has almost always been heavily dependent on a franchise QB and most of those teams that had long-term success had a franchise QB (even if the defense was real good. Gibbs was an exception, not the rule.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Once we have a Franchse-caliber QB, I will stop rooting for losses. I will switch to believing any incremental wins will help build the culture. But we are not there yet. So tanking is still very much on the table / a priority. QB is *that* important.

 

Now, if we end up finding a QB through FA or hit on a later round guy? Great. Even better. Fantastic. But until that happens, I will root for the highest possible pick to maximize the chances of drafting a legitimately elite QB.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

This seems to be the most common rebuttal but it makes no sense as to the math.  Why wouldn't there be more successes for 250 players versus 5?  For any position let alone QB.   If we don't pick top 5.  do we get the next 200 players to choose from?

I'm not saying I wouldn't prefer to have the top pick and the choice of Lawrence. My comment was just on the thought of all is lost on getting a QB if we aren't picking in the top couple of picks. It's obviously possible to hit on a good QB outside of even the top 10 even if it's difficult. 

 

My commentary was strictly in regards to that, since we aren't going to be picking in the top two again. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, MisterPinstripe said:

I'm not saying I wouldn't prefer to have the top pick and the choice of Lawrence. My comment was just on the thought of all is lost on getting a QB if we aren't picking in the top couple of picks. It's obviously possible to hit on a good QB outside of even the top 10 even if it's difficult. 

 

My commentary was strictly in regards to that, since we aren't going to be picking in the top two again. 

 

OK, got it.  I agree that anything is possible.  My point is we are unlikely to find a franchise QB lower in the draft.  The instances of successes have to weighed against the instances of failure which are much greater number as you draft lower. 

 

For me while it doesn't feel like all is lost.  I do think we are unlikely to find a franchise QB among the next grouping of QBs post Zach Wilson.    And yeah among that group some team is likely going to get a hit on one of those picks but most will strike out.  We've in the past struck out in this context.   I could be dead wrong but I don't think we are going to get a franchise QB among Kyle Trask, Mac Jones, J. Newman, etc.  But who knows? 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

OK, got it.  I agree that anything is possible.  My point is we are unlikely to find a franhcise QB lower in the draft. 

 

 

 

I disagree. We can definitely find a franchise QB without a top pick.

Because this is the real key to finding a great QB : One who plays baseball too.

I mean look at all the great NFL QB's in today's league : Russell Wilson, Patrick Mahomes, Kyler Murray, etc. Almost all of them played baseball at a high level too.

The first baseball-playing QB that drops down to us, we should grab ! :)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Malapropismic Depository said:

 

 

I disagree. We can definitely find a franchise QB without a top pick.

Because this is the real key to finding a great QB : One who plays baseball too.

I mean look at all the great NFL QB's in today's league : Russell Wilson, Patrick Mahomes, Kyler Murray, etc. Almost all of them played baseball at a high level too.

The first baseball-playing QB that drops down to us, we should grab ! :)

 

 

 

How Ohio State football’s Justin Fields nearly became a Buckeye baseball player

Updated Oct 23, 2020; Posted Oct 23, 2020
Ohio State quarterback Justin Fields (1) during the first half of the Fiesta Bowl NCAA college football game against Clemson, Saturday, Dec. 28, 2019, in Glendale, Ariz.

Ohio State quarterback Justin Fields said he was on the verge of playing baseball with the Buckeyes last spring before the coronavirus pandemic wiped out the spring sports season and closed campus.AP

Facebook Share
Twitter Share

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Major league baseball scouts called Ohio State baseball coach Greg Beals in the winter of 2018-19 to inquire about the prospect who would soon arrive on campus.

Beals could not be certain Justin Fields even planned to bring his glove and spikes up from Georgia when he joined the Buckeye football program. He did, however, share those scouts' intrigue about any dormant baseball talent in Ohio State’s next starting quarterback.

Everyone nearly saw Fields’ diamond skills last spring. Fields and Beals engaged in serious, though brief, discussions about playing baseball for the Buckeyes.

Fields said he considered playing baseball as a gift of sorts for his parents, Pablo and Jo Ann Claudrick Fields and Gina Tobey.

 

“They love the fact that I played baseball and loved seeing me play the sport of baseball, and God blessed me with the talent to play baseball," Fields said. “I said, why not?"

 

 How Ohio State quarterback Justin Fields' baseball background shaped his football future

 

Beals and Fields first discussed potentially playing baseball while OSU football was recruiting the quarterback during his transfer out of Georgia. That was not a realistic option during Fields' first spring on campus. He had a new offense to learn and a starting job to command.

 

After Ohio State’s loss to Clemson in the Fiesta Bowl last December, though, Fields started taking batting practice with friends on the baseball team. Beals wanted to know how three years away from the sport might have slowed the one-time legitimate baseball prospect’s swing or rusted his mechanics.

 

The HItTrax data on Fields' performance in the cage confirmed what his eyes suggested.

 

“The exit velocity off of his bat is trending towards the special side,” Beals said. “He’s a physical young man and a skilled young man. Combine those two and you have the potential for a pretty special baseball player just like the football player he is.”

 

Conversations began. Beals figured a position would sort itself out down the line, though he assumed the former shortstop would likely end up in the outfield. His discussions with football coach Ryan Day and strength coach Mickey Marotti did not progress to the logistics of a multi-sport schedule.

 
Justin Fields at Harrison HS in Kennesaw, Ga.

Justin Fields starred in both football and baseball at Kennesaw (Georgia) Harrison High School. (247 Sports)

 

However, nothing came of the flirtation. Fields talked it through with his family and coaches and decided to keep a one-sport focus. The still-healing knee injury that affected the end of his football season complicated also matters.

 

Eventually, the coronavirus pandemic ended up shutting down both spring football and baseball season.

 

Fields would not have been the first star quarterback to dabble in baseball. Russell Wilson played two seasons in the Colorado Rockies' minor league system in between college football seasons. The Oakland Athletics drafted Kyler Murray in the first round before he went on to win the Heisman Trophy with Oklahoma and stuck with football. The Tigers used a 37th-round pick on Patrick Mahomes, whose father, Pat, pitched in the majors.

 

Fields laughed off the thought that an MLB team might take a similar flier on him next spring, since he has not played since his junior season of high school.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/osu/2020/10/how-ohio-state-footballs-justin-fields-nearly-became-a-buckeye-baseball-player.html#:~:text=Fields said he considered playing,play baseball%2C" Fields said.

 
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • zskins changed the title to 2021 Draft Order / Tracker: Current Pick #19

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...