2022 Comprehensive Draft Thread

[KDawg]

10 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

Anyone else just ****in tired of watching QB prospects and debating and evaluating them and the outcomes are that we're either going to pass on them or we take one with no good plan for how to develop him or build around him, and instead we undermine and mishandle him, and then either alienate him and run him out of town or scapegoat him when we fail?

 

I was so badly hoping that we would escape that hampster wheel with either Fitzy or Heinicke.  Or even better, Watson, Wilson, or Rodgers.  It's hard to keep summoning the energy to care about these college QBs.

 

That's not what happened with Haskins, by the way. Yes, Bruce Allen was a contributor to his failure, but so was Haskins. And him being on Pittsburgh as the third string QB isn't a victory lap. 

[Warhead36]

Its not about getting any QB. Its about getting the right one.

[Darrell Green Fan]

For the few remaining fans who can't understand the value of a really good QB I invite you to look at that game yesterday.  Justin Herbert was a stud and delivered the ball all day long, he was by far the most impactful player on the field and it wasn't even close.

 

You have to have one of these guys, unfortunately RR has said a number of times that the plan is to build the roster and plug in a vet at QB.  

 

Kill me.  

 

 

[Est.1974]

3 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

Its not about getting any QB. Its about getting the right one.

You also have to be prepared to pay a premium to go and get who you think is the right one if it is highly unlikely they are going to fall into your lap.

 

Our pursuit of a QB is going to have to be far more aggressive in 2022.

[No Nonsense]

If a team like Jacksonville is picking number one, I’m will to do whatever it takes to move up. We have to be aggressive next year. 

[philibusters]

13 minutes ago, No Nonsense said:

If a team like Jacksonville is picking number one, I’m will to do whatever it takes to move up. We have to be aggressive next year. 

 

I don't necessarily agree with that.  You only aggressive try to move up if you are convinced that there a guy available there is a likely franchise QB.

[No Nonsense]

Just now, philibusters said:

 

I don't necessarily agree with that.  You only aggressive try to move up if you are convinced that there a guy available there is a likely franchise QB.

You might be right. Looked at the QB’s coming out next year and it seems to be a weak class. There’s no “can’t miss” prospects. 

[SemperFi Skins]

QB Carson Strong..... If you haven't watched, do yourself a favor...

[Playaction2Sanders]

On 9/13/2021 at 7:27 AM, Darrell Green Fan said:

For the few remaining fans who can't understand the value of a really good QB I invite you to look at that game yesterday.  Justin Herbert was a stud and delivered the ball all day long, he was by far the most impactful player on the field and it wasn't even close.

 

You have to have one of these guys, unfortunately RR has said a number of times that the plan is to build the roster and plug in a vet at QB.  

 

Kill me.  

 

 

 

The Ravens did it in 2000, TB did it in 2002, Raiders did it in '83, there are plenty of examples of teams winning it all after bringing in a vet. Meanwhile, yes have a set it and forget it QB is nice, but it doesn't equate to rings everytime either. Look are Warren Moon, Rivers, Marino, Esaison, Tarkington, Fouts, Kelly. Then you have guys like Favre and Rodgers despite their crazy numbers you only have 2 rings between the two of them. We of all fans should know about bringing vet QB's to lead our established teams to the promise land. Gibbs set the standard for that..

[No Nonsense]

17 minutes ago, Playaction2Sanders said:

 

The Ravens did it in 2000, TB did it in 2002, Raiders did it in '83, there are plenty of examples of teams winning it all after bringing in a vet. Meanwhile, yes have a set it and forget it QB is nice, but it doesn't equate to rings everytime either. Look are Warren Moon, Rivers, Marino, Esaison, Tarkington, Fouts, Kelly. Then you have guys like Favre and Rodgers despite their crazy numbers you only have 2 rings between the two of them. We of all fans should know about bringing vet QB's to lead our established teams to the promise land. Gibbs set the standard for that..

Those are exceptions to the rule. Go up and down Super Bowl winning QB’s and you’ll see that most are Hall of Famers. 

Edited September 14, 2021 by No Nonsense

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

1 hour ago, No Nonsense said:

Those are exceptions to the rule. Go up and down Super Bowl winning QB’s and you’ll see that most are Hall of Famers. 

Longevity plays a part.  More opportunities to get a chance with a quality team around you.

 

I'll also say Eli Manning twice, Joe Flacco, Nick Foles, and washed-up Peyton Manning can be added to that list.  Peyton however won once while be in his prime, so it's an oddity.

[Darrell Green Fan]

22 hours ago, Playaction2Sanders said:

 

The Ravens did it in 2000, TB did it in 2002, Raiders did it in '83, there are plenty of examples of teams winning it all after bringing in a vet. Meanwhile, yes have a set it and forget it QB is nice, but it doesn't equate to rings everytime either. Look are Warren Moon, Rivers, Marino, Esaison, Tarkington, Fouts, Kelly. Then you have guys like Favre and Rodgers despite their crazy numbers you only have 2 rings between the two of them. We of all fans should know about bringing vet QB's to lead our established teams to the promise land. Gibbs set the standard for that..

 

You have 3 examples from a generation ago.  And yes there were a few more examples, mostly of the one and done variety. And of course what people want to conveniently  forget is during those title runs all of those average quarterbacks played like true franchise quarterbacks. For every SB won by one of these players 10 are won by a true franchise QB  We see the teams who are contenders for a decade mostly all have a franchise QB.

 

And this is a different NFL today, if you still can't understand the value of the QB in a league that throws the ball 50 times a game now I have no idea what to say to that.  

Edited September 15, 2021 by Darrell Green Fan

[Playaction2Sanders]

4 hours ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

You have 3 examples from a generation ago.  And yes there were a few more examples, mostly of the one and done variety. And of course what people want to conveniently  forget is during those title runs all of those average quarterbacks played like true franchise quarterbacks. For every SB won by one of these players 10 are won by a true franchise QB  We see the teams who are contenders for a decade mostly all have a franchise QB.

 

And this is a different NFL today, if you still can't understand the value of the QB in a league that throws the ball 50 times a game now I have no idea what to say to that.  

 

I understand that when theres the Aaron Rodgers and Tony Romo's of the world who put up amazing numbers year in and year out and you have a Rodgers who will probably be a top 3 QB of all time when its said and done, and for all the stability he brought in the QB position he's won 1 ring. Romo only what twice had a decent cowboy team around him and he was out there slinging it game after game and putting up 30 plus points a game and his defense would give up 31 points.. Trust me I understand the value of the QB, I've wanted a franchise QB here since I became a fan in '88 but I know its not the only way to go. John Elway was on his way to a Marino career until Denver finally put a good team around him, you think Charger fans wouldn't trade the Brees Rivers era for a couple of Rings the Ravens won during that same period? San Diego might still have a team if they did...

[Darrell Green Fan]

3 hours ago, Playaction2Sanders said:

 

I understand that when theres the Aaron Rodgers and Tony Romo's of the world who put up amazing numbers year in and year out and you have a Rodgers who will probably be a top 3 QB of all time when its said and done, and for all the stability he brought in the QB position he's won 1 ring. Romo only what twice had a decent cowboy team around him and he was out there slinging it game after game and putting up 30 plus points a game and his defense would give up 31 points.. Trust me I understand the value of the QB, I've wanted a franchise QB here since I became a fan in '88 but I know its not the only way to go. John Elway was on his way to a Marino career until Denver finally put a good team around him, you think Charger fans wouldn't trade the Brees Rivers era for a couple of Rings the Ravens won during that same period? San Diego might still have a team if they did...

 

I'm glad to see you understand the value of a quarterback. The post I quoted seemed to indicate you felt the other way.  Sure Rodgers may only win one ring bu he kept them in the conversation for 10+  years, many times mostly by himself. I think we'd all take Green Bay's previous 10 years.

 

I do get tired of people bringing up players like Eli, Flacco or Rypien because as I said during their playoff run to the title they played exactly like a franchise quarterback.  Once they reverted to who they really were their teams fell off dramatically.  So I don't see how that's an argument against the need for a franchise quarterback.

 

Peace out.

Edited September 15, 2021 by Darrell Green Fan

[PartyPosse]

21 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

I'm glad to see you understand the value of a quarterback. The post I quoted seemed to indicate you felt the other way.  Sure Rodgers may only win one ring bu he kept them in the conversation for 10+  years, many times mostly by himself. I think we'd all take Green Bay's previous 10 years.

 

I do get tired of people bringing up players like Eli, Flacco or Rypien because as I said during their playoff run to the title they played exactly like a franchise quarterback.  Once they reverted to who they really were their teams fell off dramatically.  So I don't see how that's an argument against the need for a franchise quarterback.

 

Peace out.

Here's the problem. I'll use Eli as an example. He was horrendous during both the regular seasons of their superbowl seasons. You still need to make the playoffs and they did no thanks to him. In 2007, the dude led the league in INTs and barely threw for 3000 yards. That year was actually the lowest QBR of his career and it's not even close either. 2011 was better but still had a less than 2-1 TD/INT ratio. They got where they did because, like now, the division was weak (they won it at 9-7). Flacco, when they won in 2012, had a very meh year as well, throwing for 22 TDs and double digit INT. Any QB can get hot at the right time. Up until the playoffs, neither of those two had shown anything remotely close to being franchise guys other than when they were drafted.

Edited September 15, 2021 by PartyPosse

[Darrell Green Fan]

17 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

Here's the problem. I'll use Eli as an example. He was horrendous during both the regular seasons of their superbowl seasons. You still need to make the playoffs and they did no thanks to him. In 2007, the dude led the league in INTs and barely threw for 3000 yards. That year was actually the lowest QBR of his career and it's not even close either. 2011 was better but still had a less than 2-1 TD/INT ratio. They got where they did because, like now, the division was weak (they won it at 9-7). Flacco, when they won in 2012, had a very meh year as well, throwing for 22 TDs and double digit INT. Any QB can get hot at the right time. Up until the playoffs, neither of those two had shown anything remotely close to being franchise guys other than when they were drafted.

 

I agree with every word you just wrote. Of course a quarterback can't do it by himself.  To get to the playoffs and win a title, you need a team around you. 

 

But the point remains Flacco or Eli can get hot for a month whereas a franchise quarterback will play at that level or close to it for 10+ years.  Banking on an average quarterback catching lightning in a bottle for a month doesn't sound like a sound strategy to me. And of course in most every case they were one and done, it's just not sustainable.

Edited September 15, 2021 by Darrell Green Fan

[PartyPosse]

7 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

I agree with every word you just wrote. Of course a quarterback can't do it by himself.  To get to the playoffs and win a title, you need a team around you. 

 

But the point remains Flacco or Eli can get hot for a month whereas a franchise quarterback will play at that level or close to it for 10+ years.  Banking on an average quarterback catching lightning in a bottle for a month doesn't sound like a sound strategy to me. And of course in most every case they were one and done, it's just not sustainable.

Here's an interesting thing to think about. How many Franchise QBs that were drafted as such have thrived as they were supposed to?Brady obviously was not expected, nor were, say Brees (2nd rounder, traded before he elevated his game) and Wentz (debatable). My point is I can't think of 3 or 4 QBs in the league that were drafted in the first that actually lived up to their position. I discount Josh Allen and the recent picks because it's too early, but think about it, Rodgers, Big Ben and Mahomes are it. Watson was good, but didn't win anything despite having a good team (granted still young), Rivers didn't win anything, Eli, Flacco and Ryan were good but had major flaws to their games, Darnold, Rosen, Mayfield, Goff, Winston, Mariota, all have shown flashes and even had good years, but all regrettable choices now. Even going back further, the Bortles and Geno Smiths... so many busts.

 

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

15 hours ago, PartyPosse said:

Here's an interesting thing to think about. How many Franchise QBs that were drafted as such have thrived as they were supposed to?Brady obviously was not expected, nor were, say Brees (2nd rounder, traded before he elevated his game) and Wentz (debatable). My point is I can't think of 3 or 4 QBs in the league that were drafted in the first that actually lived up to their position. I discount Josh Allen and the recent picks because it's too early, but think about it, Rodgers, Big Ben and Mahomes are it. Watson was good, but didn't win anything despite having a good team (granted still young), Rivers didn't win anything, Eli, Flacco and Ryan were good but had major flaws to their games, Darnold, Rosen, Mayfield, Goff, Winston, Mariota, all have shown flashes and even had good years, but all regrettable choices now. Even going back further, the Bortles and Geno Smiths... so many busts.

 

 

 

Someone posted the figures.  First round pick bust over half the time.  But after the first round the bust rate is insanely bad.   

 

But you gotta keep trying, I'm trying to come up with an example of a team who won consistently for a long time without a franchise quarterback. At first I was thinking the Ravens but a quick review shows they were 5-11, 8-8 and 9-7 the 3 years prior to acquiring Lamar. Once they got that quarterback well the results are obvious.

 

San Diego's prospects are totally different today than they were a year ago, and Herbert is the biggest reason obviously.  I think we can throw away the receipt on Josh Allen.  The Bills are now contenders and he is the reason.

Edited September 16, 2021 by Darrell Green Fan

[JoggingGod]

23 hours ago, Playaction2Sanders said:

but I know its not the only way to go

No, it is the only way to go in the modern NFL. If you don’t have a franchise QB, you’re not a contender.

[PartyPosse]

1 hour ago, JoggingGod said:

No, it is the only way to go in the modern NFL. If you don’t have a franchise QB, you’re not a contender.

Meh. I don’t necessarily agree. In the last 4 Super Bowls, 3 of them had an average to slightly better than average QB, and depending on your thoughts on Matt Ryan that could even stretch back to 5 of the last 6 Super Bowls.

Edited September 16, 2021 by PartyPosse

[Darrell Green Fan]

1 hour ago, PartyPosse said:

Meh. I don’t necessarily agree. In the last 4 Super Bowls, 3 of them had an average to slightly better than average QB, and depending on your thoughts on Matt Ryan that could even stretch back to 5 of the last 6 Super Bowls.

 

Can you think of a team that had lasting success, which is what all fans want, without a franchise QB?  I had figured Baltimore would qualify but then I found they went 5-11, 8-8 and 9-7 before Lamar.   After his arrival they went 10-6 and 14-2.

 

So who has had lasting success using a middle of the pack QB approach?  I'm not talking the one and done examples posters keep trotting out, I'm talking about year after year.  Maybe Tennessee?  List is awful short and the Titans have really only had one season where in the conversation for a title.  Meanwhile we have maybe 10 franchise QBs in a 32 team league yet with over twice as many teams those other 22 teams have had far fewer appearances in the SB when compare to the teams that have that guy.   

Edited September 16, 2021 by Darrell Green Fan

[PartyPosse]

1 hour ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

Can you think of a team that had lasting success, which is what all fans want, without a franchise QB?  I had figured Baltimore would qualify but then I found they went 5-11, 8-8 and 9-7 before Lamar.   After his arrival they went 10-6 and 14-2.

 

So who has had lasting success using a middle of the pack QB approach?  I'm not talking the one and done examples posters keep trotting out, I'm talking about year after year.  Maybe Tennessee?  List is awful short and the Titans have really only had one season where in the conversation for a title.  Meanwhile we have maybe 10 franchise QBs in a 32 team league yet with over twice as many teams those other 22 teams have had far fewer appearances in the SB when compare to the teams that have that guy.   

Giants, Baltimore, KC with Alex Smith… it really depends on your definition of success. Does that mean consistently good or does that mean super bowls?

[Darrell Green Fan]

12 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

Giants, Baltimore, KC with Alex Smith… it really depends on your definition of success. Does that mean consistently good or does that mean super bowls?

 

I mean consistently good and being in the hunt for a title. The Niners with Alex is the perfect example, as was the Bengals with Dalton, of how you can build a great 52 player roster but get submarined by an average starting QB.  

[PartyPosse]

24 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

I mean consistently good and being in the hunt for a title. The Niners with Alex is the perfect example, as was the Bengals with Dalton, of how you can build a great 52 player roster but get submarined by an average starting QB.  

Then I guess it also depends on your definition of a franchise QB. Was Eli one? Flacco? Cousins?

Edited September 16, 2021 by PartyPosse

[Darrell Green Fan]

16 hours ago, PartyPosse said:

Then I guess it also depends on your definition of a franchise QB. Was Eli one? Flacco? Cousins?

 

I hate to admit it but yes Eli was a franchise QB.  Flacco was not, the Ravens are the only team I can think of that had sustained winning without a franchise QB. But then again they went a combined 22-26 in the 3 seasons prior to finding that franchise QB so maybe our only example is not a very good one. Cousins is not a franchise QB and certainly has not been winning enough to even be in the conversation.  That Vikes team could have been contenders if they only had a true franchise QB.  But they don't so here they are.