Rookie QB or Veteran QB for "Next Season"??? (I didn't bump this, but I ended up being wrong anyway....)

[JoggingGod]

54 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

None of us can say for sure how good or insignificant TH is gonna be

Yes we can because it's been 6 years and he's started one game. It's so stupid and insulting to pass up on Fields and Lance because some randim backup played decently in a couple games

[LetThePointsSoar]

16 minutes ago, JoggingGod said:

Yes we can because it's been 6 years and he's started one game. It's so stupid and insulting to pass up on Fields and Lance because some randim backup played decently in a couple games

 

JG, you must be a bundle o' joy at ****tail parties... 

 

I'd still love to see us go get Justin Fields, but would be perfectly fine to roll into camp with a competition between Fitz and TH. 

[actorguy1]

 

[88Comrade2000]

With draft in 3 days; it should be an interesting evening.  I predict the Team will not go after QB4 or QB5 of that first tier.  It's is possible that should one of the 2nd tier be available where they are drafting in Round 2 or 3; they might take one.

 

Basically, this draft depends on whether Mac Jones goes in the Top 3 and what Atlanta does at #4.  Despite the fact they can't get rid of Matt Ryan for 2 years; they may still draft a QB at #4. Atlanta could also stay at #4 and draft Pitts.  Atlanta could also trade down.   If a team is trading up to #4; other than Dallas, then it's for a QB.

I would say Denver, New England and Chicago are more hungrier than we are to move up that high.  After spending in free agency; I can see Bill trade up to #4; if the QB he wants is there.

 

Also, it's still possible Carolina still drafts a QB; even after giving 3 picks for Darnold.  Their owner wants a stud QB and if one is still available at #8; Carolina could pounce.  Heck, Carolina may just trade Darnold; if they draft a QB.

 

If Mac Jones is still available; I don't see anyone really trading up to get him. They will just let him slide to them and then take him.

 

If you are expecting the Team to draft QB4 or QB5 of that first tier; you probably will be disappointed.

 

[JoggingGod]

13 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

With draft in 3 days; it should be an interesting evening.  I predict the Team will not go after QB4 or QB5 of that first tier.  It's is possible that should one of the 2nd tier be available where they are drafting in Round 2 or 3; they might take one.

 

Basically, this draft depends on whether Mac Jones goes in the Top 3 and what Atlanta does at #4.  Despite the fact they can't get rid of Matt Ryan for 2 years; they may still draft a QB at #4. Atlanta could also stay at #4 and draft Pitts.  Atlanta could also trade down.   If a team is trading up to #4; other than Dallas, then it's for a QB.

I would say Denver, New England and Chicago are more hungrier than we are to move up that high.  After spending in free agency; I can see Bill trade up to #4; if the QB he wants is there.

 

Also, it's still possible Carolina still drafts a QB; even after giving 3 picks for Darnold.  Their owner wants a stud QB and if one is still available at #8; Carolina could pounce.  Heck, Carolina may just trade Darnold; if they draft a QB.

 

If Mac Jones is still available; I don't see anyone really trading up to get him. They will just let him slide to them and then take him.

 

If you are expecting the Team to draft QB4 or QB5 of that first tier; you probably will be disappointed.

 

QB4 and QB5 are still miles better than any other option in the next two drafts. So I don’t buy that they won’t be aggressive.

Edited April 26, 2021 by JoggingGod

[DWinzit]

7 hours ago, JoggingGod said:

QB4 and QB5 are still miles better than any other option in the next two drafts. So I don’t buy that they won’t be aggressive.

I don't understand how anyone can make the statement about the next two years drafts. I mean, some of those top 5 were virtual unknowns or late round considerations before the season. There are some potential top QB's coming up,

 

I do however agree that they may be aggressive because Rivera really wants the future QB on the roster this year.

[kingdaddy]

11 hours ago, JoggingGod said:

Yes we can because it's been 6 years and he's started one game. It's so stupid and insulting to pass up on Fields and Lance because some randim backup played decently in a couple games

Who said anything about passing on Fields or Lance if they fell to us? BTW, you do know that Tony Romo was an undrafted free agent right? Players develop and others fall off....it happens in every sport. 

[tmandoug1]

10 hours ago, JoggingGod said:

QB4 and QB5 are still miles better than any other option in the next two drafts. So I don’t buy that they won’t be aggressive.

Well **** let's trade up and get a bust so we don't have any 1st round picks over the next two drafts to see if you are right! 

[JoggingGod]

15 minutes ago, tmandoug1 said:

Well **** let's trade up and get a bust so we don't have any 1st round picks over the next two drafts to see if you are right! 

Where did I say trade 3 first rounders 

1 hour ago, kingdaddy said:

Who said anything about passing on Fields or Lance if they fell to us? BTW, you do know that Tony Romo was an undrafted free agent right? Players develop and others fall off....it happens in every sport. 

You’re not looking at the statistics. A QB drafted after round 2 is extremely extremely unlikely to pan out. It’s about 40% in round 1 and 20% in round 2 vs .05% in round 3 and later. You can’t just pray to god that somebody becomes a stud out of nowhere anymore, it just doesn’t happen when people want it to

[samy316]

1 hour ago, kingdaddy said:

Who said anything about passing on Fields or Lance if they fell to us? BTW, you do know that Tony Romo was an undrafted free agent right? Players develop and others fall off....it happens in every sport. 

Tony Romo is the exception, not the rule.  We can’t feel to comfortable about our QB situation as it stands for the long term.  I’m certain we’re going to do everything we can to draft a QB, whether it be trading up into the top 10 if the opportunity should arise, or drafting one in the 2nd or 3rd round.  QB is the one position that’s of most importance, especially since next year’s draft will be very poor and mediocre for the next batch of QB’s.  We need to get our QB of the future this season, and have him sit and learn behind Fitz.

[JoggingGod]

14 minutes ago, samy316 said:

Tony Romo is the exception, not the rule.  We can’t feel to comfortable about our QB situation as it stands for the long term.  I’m certain we’re going to do everything we can to draft a QB, whether it be trading up into the top 10 if the opportunity should arise, or drafting one in the 2nd or 3rd round.  QB is the one position that’s of most importance, especially since next year’s draft will be very poor and mediocre for the next batch of QB’s.  We need to get our QB of the future this season, and have him sit and learn behind Fitz.

This is the post. People don’t understand that QBs don’t grow on trees.

[kingdaddy]

23 minutes ago, samy316 said:

Tony Romo is the exception, not the rule.  We can’t feel to comfortable about our QB situation as it stands for the long term.  I’m certain we’re going to do everything we can to draft a QB, whether it be trading up into the top 10 if the opportunity should arise, or drafting one in the 2nd or 3rd round.  QB is the one position that’s of most importance, especially since next year’s draft will be very poor and mediocre for the next batch of QB’s.  We need to get our QB of the future this season, and have him sit and learn behind Fitz.

In my case he is the rule. Righting off a guy like TH, or any other player is just wrong. Who'd have thought Logan Thomas would have a pro bowl year last season and he did (he got screwed in the voting). Of course guys drafted higher have a better % of being successful but there are cases where lesser known guys who can play make it big. For me, TH showed he can play in the league and this coaching staff seems to agree just by telling him he will be given a shot to compete for the starting job. Think about that. Had Heinicke played over Haskins last year we probably have at least 2 more wins, the dude showed he can play in the league and did it under the bright lights. Will he be our future at QB? More than likely no....but I wouldn't write him off just for a high draft pick. Have we learned nothing from watching high draft picks like Rosen, Haskins, Trubisky and others? TH has shown he can play. 

[The Consigliere]

On 4/23/2021 at 3:11 PM, Burgundy Yoda said:

I thought the question in the title was answered when we signed Ryan Fitzpatrick? 

 

He's 38 and pretty much never been a full time starter anywhere, he's basically Alex Smith in '18, McNabb in '09, Boonell in '03, Johnson in a mega overpay in '99 because an ownership change cost us Trent Green, Friesz in '94 etc. He's not a plan. He's a stop gap/bridge, but since we aren't getting a QB unless we trade up, and the '22 class sucks, if we don't trade up, he's basically a cul de sac w/a great beard. 

Edited April 26, 2021 by The Consigliere

[CurseReversed]

QB's don't grow in draft slots either.  How could Tony Romo be the exception? Is he another outlier with Tom Brady?  How many other outliers have there been, seems like a lot? Which QB's are the outliers and which are the standard nowadays?  Is Mahommes the ony standard now?  What about Watson, Burrow, Wentz?  What has anyone proven to make this new standard fact.  Sorry I just don't see it.  You can get a winner anywhere in the draft, and its been proven countless times.  Just like its been proven that your more likely to get a player you want if you have the first chance to pick them.  Both things are true, simultaneously.

 

Edited April 26, 2021 by CurseReversed

[TradeTheBeal!]

1).  Fitz leads us to a division title and a playoff win while the defense rounds into championship caliber.

2).  Aaron Rodgers pulls a Brady and comes to DC

3).  Dynasty ensues.

 

Buckle up.

[JoggingGod]

17 minutes ago, CurseReversed said:

QB's don't grow in draft slots either.  How could Tony Romo be the exception? Is he another outlier with Tom Brady?  How many other outliers have there been, seems like a lot? Which QB's are the outliers and which are the standard nowadays?  Is Mahommes the ony standard now?  What about Watson, Burrow, Wentz?  What has anyone proven to make this new standard fact.  Sorry I just don't see it.  You can get a winner anywhere in the draft, and its been proven countless times.  Just like its been proven that your more likely to get a player you want if you have the first chance to pick them.  Both things are true, simultaneously.

 

 No you can’t get a QB anywhere in the draft. Stop with this narrative. Look at the god damn statistics. The chances of getting a successful QB earlier are unbelievably higher than late. Not to mention a prospect like Wilson literally just went first overall recently.

[The Consigliere]

4 hours ago, DWinzit said:

I don't understand how anyone can make the statement about the next two years drafts. I mean, some of those top 5 were virtual unknowns or late round considerations before the season. There are some potential top QB's coming up,

 

I do however agree that they may be aggressive because Rivera really wants the future QB on the roster this year.

Trevor Lawrence: Known since what 2017?

Justin Fields: The same. 

Trey Lance: Viewed as the QB 3 fall of '19. 

 

There are fast risers every year, which I think is your point probably, but unless there's something unique about it, generally those guys are fools gold:

Exceptions:

Kyler Murray: People assumed he was going to play baseball

Cam Newton: half his college career was Juco

Are there more? Probably, just can't think of them right now.

 

The non exceptions abound: Danny Dimes, Haskins in '19, Trubisky in '17, practically the entire bogus '11 class etc. 

 

This year the fast risers were Zach Wilson and Mac Jones, but both come with asterisks, Wilson because he'd looked quite good as a freshman before being uneven in '19, and Jones because he was behind a near generational talent in Tua. 

 

I think the best way to look at it is this way:

 

Generally the classes that are raved about usually hit below expectation by a little or a lot (think '99 and '18)

Generally the classes that are projected to suck, do suck (see '13-'14, '19, and much of the aughts where no class other than '04 really hit at anything above a fairly anemic level). 

 

There aren't many exceptions to these rules pretty much ever.

If '22 is projected to be bad, it will be bad. You can almost guarantee it. Will anyone rise up of interest, yes, they nearly always do, even in empty classes because QB need is ever present, and it's miles more important than any other position so even in the worst of classes guys like Gabbert and Bortles and Danny Dimes will float up regardless of the fact that they're sub top 50 in overall talent and would sit behind top 5 or 6 in a loaded class. 

 

Projecting to '23 is more difficult, my understanding has been that it's solid, not great, not horrible, just solid, but I haven't even looked that closely at it yet because it's two years away, other than Lawrence/Fields type prospects, most QB's make themselves known in their age 18-20 year, so most of the best of '23 haven't started a game yet, or only have a partial season in the books. For instance, the top 3 ranked QB's in DLF's Devy report rankings have 2 starts between them, and are not surprisingly, Clemson, Ohio State, and Alabama recruits. We don't know anything other than their status when recruited. So I'm not trashing '23 yet, we'll know more about '23 next fall, but '22 already looks like a wasteland. No doubt a QB or two will go round 1, even in truly horrible drafts, somebody floats up most of the time, but you don't want to repeat the '19 fiasco of digging in the trash bin of a bad draft when you could have gone QB hunting in the much better '18 class (admittedly Rosen flamed out, Darnold nearly flamed out, Baker's just solid, and Lamar had a return to the mean of expectations '20 while dinged up but regardless, we should've been looking for QB's in the '17 and '18 classes when they were loaded rather than postponing the search, those classes had what appears to be at least five hits combined, meanwhile we dug into a '19 class w/one. Now we've repeated the mistake, avoiding QB in '20, which has 2 hits, and a question mark, and unless we trade up, we'll pass on another class with 5 well rated options).

 

This kind of thinking, needles to say (the redskins, not yours) just drives me completely mad every offseason. It's not a coincidence that we've basically drafted and developed two legit franchise QB's since the Great Depression. 

2 hours ago, kingdaddy said:

Who said anything about passing on Fields or Lance if they fell to us? BTW, you do know that Tony Romo was an undrafted free agent right? Players develop and others fall off....it happens in every sport. 

 

That isn't a plan, the hit rate on undrafted free agent QB's is so miniscule it isn't even worth considering. It's not a plan to bet on a strategy that fails 99.7% of the time. 

2 hours ago, tmandoug1 said:

Well **** let's trade up and get a bust so we don't have any 1st round picks over the next two drafts to see if you are right! 

 

Absolutely. If we're right, we nail it, if we're wrong, we're so wrong that by the time we have a first again we can try again. It's a way way way better strategy than dumpster diving in the veterans on crutches bin, and day 3 hail mary's that hit at basically 1/15th the actual success rate of real hail mary's. 

 

I'm serious btw, one of the side benefits of big trade ups, is if you're wrong, you're wrong in a way that helps you to fix the problem by the time you have firsts again.

 

Or instead we can keep banging our heads against the wall using an approach that guarantees 4 sub .500 records every 5 years, and one playoff one and done game as we have done for the past 30 years (or nearly so).

 

Seems an easy as hell decision to make, to me anyway. 

[tmandoug1]

2 hours ago, JoggingGod said:

Where did I say trade 3 first rounders 

 

I guess I'm confused by your post. Did you mean to say all the QB's suck in the next two drafts compared to this year's 4th and 5th option? Does being aggressive mean trading up or does it mean picking what's left at 19? The reality is we are going to be to good over the next couple of years to get a decent QB in the draft anyway.......correct? I don't believe there is a QB in THIS year's draft that is worth the amount of capital it will take to move and get. However I am far from a QB whisperer. I know I don't like any QB that has accuracy issues or doesn't have the experience to change plays at the line.

[The Consigliere]

35 minutes ago, CurseReversed said:

QB's don't grow in draft slots either.  How could Tony Romo be the exception? Is he another outlier with Tom Brady?  How many other outliers have there been, seems like a lot? Which QB's are the outliers and which are the standard nowadays?  Is Mahommes the ony standard now?  What about Watson, Burrow, Wentz?  What has anyone proven to make this new standard fact.  Sorry I just don't see it.  You can get a winner anywhere in the draft, and its been proven countless times.  Just like its been proven that your more likely to get a player you want if you have the first chance to pick them.  Both things are true, simultaneously.

 

 

There aren't many outliers, and it's important to note, you're looking at the outliers across decades. You just mentioned a pair from '00 and '03. There have been 17 drafts since then, and not a lot of Day 3/UDFA hits period since. It does happen, but it's exceptionally rare. 

[tmandoug1]

 

   @The Consigliere I'm serious btw, one of the side benefits of big trade ups, is if you're wrong, you're wrong in a way that helps you to fix the problem by the time you have firsts again.

How exactly does that work. I actually believe that if one of them falls to 19 and we take them that is actually a gamble in itself.....again just my opinion.

 

[CurseReversed]

32 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

 

There aren't many outliers, and it's important to note, you're looking at the outliers across decades. You just mentioned a pair from '00 and '03. There have been 17 drafts since then, and not a lot of Day 3/UDFA hits period since. It does happen, but it's exceptionally rare. 

Over the past 20 plus years Tom Brady has appeared in 10 super bowls.  Doesnt that make him the standard?  How could the standard be the outlier at the same time?  Is that too small a sliver of time?  Who was great before Brady, Montana?  Third round pick.  Drew Brees, Second round.  Who has been a winner more recently, Wilson? 3rd round pick.   Are they all outliers too?

 

I would argue that greatness itself is exceptionally rare, and is based on so many factors, that trying predict it on draft slot alone is over simplistic. 

Edited April 26, 2021 by CurseReversed

[CurseReversed]

44 minutes ago, JoggingGod said:

 No you can’t get a QB anywhere in the draft. Stop with this narrative. Look at the god damn statistics. The chances of getting a successful QB earlier are unbelievably higher than late. Not to mention a prospect like Wilson literally just went first overall recently.

Why do any front offices bother picking QB's after the first round?  Are they all just ignorant of statistics, or maybe just looking for only backups?

[The Consigliere]

40 minutes ago, CurseReversed said:

QB's don't grow in draft slots either.  How could Tony Romo be the exception? Is he another outlier with Tom Brady?  How many other outliers have there been, seems like a lot? Which QB's are the outliers and which are the standard nowadays?  Is Mahommes the ony standard now?  What about Watson, Burrow, Wentz?  What has anyone proven to make this new standard fact.  Sorry I just don't see it.  You can get a winner anywhere in the draft, and its been proven countless times.  Just like its been proven that your more likely to get a player you want if you have the first chance to pick them.  Both things are true, simultaneously.

 

As for outlier hits, it's exceptionally small, hence the outlier:

Dallas hit on Romo and Dak (which is nuts) ('03 and '15 or '16)

We hit on cousins ('12)

Seattle hit on Wilson (not an outlier in the same way, but still outside the top 2 rounds, in '12)

Rams hit on Kurt Warner '99

New England Hit on Brady '00

 

and that's it. We've got 5 hits, + Wilson, over the past what, 22 years of drafts, and that's across hundreds of QB's (or maybe a hundred plus, feel free to add a guy or guys if I forgot one).

 

Again, the hit rate is so tiny as to be essentially pointless as a strategic approach. You could kinda justify it as a dart throw if you don't like the prospects and you really believe in the talent, especially if a guy slipped, but as a plan, it's straight up nuts. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Consigliere]

35 minutes ago, tmandoug1 said:

 

   @The Consigliere I'm serious btw, one of the side benefits of big trade ups, is if you're wrong, you're wrong in a way that helps you to fix the problem by the time you have firsts again.

How exactly does that work. I actually believe that if one of them falls to 19 and we take them that is actually a gamble in itself.....again just my opinion.

 

It's pretty simple, if you did a Niner type trade, trade all those assets, and miss, generally speaking (not always, but usually teams making that kind of trade up need QB help bad to actually compete, it's rare that a team does that and has a great roster otherwise like the Niners, or even us to some extent) the cost of trading the assets for a bust is generally severe enough to hurt your team so that 2-3 years later you're in the toilet, and drafting top 1-5 again, just in time to try to reboot at the position. In the past QB's took 2-3 years to tell you who they were in terms of hit/bust, teams take less time to evaluate that these days, but they do usually give a guy at least 2 years to succeed or fail. If it's a fail, generally, your team suffers for it, and falls down badly by the time you have your own firsts again, in the rare instance in which that isn't true, it generally means you found a solution for QB elsewhere (like us with Cousins) and so you're reasonably fine anyway. 

 

That's one of the many reasons I was fine with the RGIII trade, if we drafted a bust (and we did), we'd have our picks back in time for the Winston/Mariota class and we would have been horrible, if we couldn't get them, we could likely try for Goff/Wentz the following year, Watson/Mahomes/Trubiksy in '17 etc. Basically, if you don't have a QB you don't matter anyway unless you're the Ravens, and at that point, you should keep rebooting until you hit, and even then, it still makes sense to try to get QB hits even after getting yours simply due to the ridiculous value of them if you hit twice, and due to the generally sustained value even if they're busting. The Cardinals flipped my one time fav Rosen for a late 2nd after just one year, the Jets just flipped Darnold for a 2nd and multiple day 3 picks after 3 years of unimpressive play. Picking Qb's early makes sense from pretty much every angle imaginable. 

[The Consigliere]

40 minutes ago, CurseReversed said:

Over the past 20 plus years Tom Brady has appeared in 10 super bowls.  Doesnt that make him the standard?  How could the standard be the outlier at the same time?  Is that too small a sliver of time?  Who was great before Brady, Montana?  Third round pick.  Drew Brees, Second round.  Who has been a winner more recently, Wilson? 3rd round pick.   Are they all outliers too?

 

I would argue that greatness itself is exceptionally rare, and is based on so many factors, that trying predict it on draft slot alone is over simplistic. 

 

No because you're not looking for individual player examples, you're looking for the approaches that consistently yield the most hits, or the fewest misses, what generates the most consistent win rate. 

 

Brady was an accident, not a strategy, if he was a strategy he would have been selected ahead of guys like Gio Carmazzi and Tim Rattay (who my local niners took instead of the home grown Brady, they'd make the same mistake five years later when they ignored local no-cal Aaron Rodgers for Urban's guy, Alex Smith). 

 

You want to build a strategy around what is the most successful approach, and that's taking them early. It's not fool proof, you're gonna miss 50% of the time, probably more than that in bad years like '19, '13-'14 etc, but you've got a reasonable chance of hitting, 1 in 2. You try the patriots strategy, I'm just spit balling, but it would absolutely shock me if dart throws at 175ish or later in a draft hit more than like .75-2% of the time. I suppose it could be as high as 2.5-3%, but that's unlikely to me. And someone just posted a study referencing this very question which echoes my sentiments. If you talk about hit rate for future final four performances, it's even higher.