The Official QB Thread- JD5 taken #2. Randall 2.0 or Bayou Bob? Mariotta and Hartman forever. Fromm cut

[Ball Security]

1 minute ago, Command The 414 said:

And to the best of my recollection a lot thought that was a stretch for Buffalo…w/Allen not being a can’t miss guy 

Yeah, Mayfield and Darnold seemed to be the consensus 1-2 with Rosen slipping a bit (did he love football? Did things like wear a politically polarizing tee shirt on a golf course) and Allen had the accuracy and lack of college competition concerns. Many GMs wanted Jackson to be WR.

 

I do wonder what Darnold’s career is going to look like. If he’s going to have a renaissance after working with Shanahan to have a lower to mid tier starter ceiling. He’s a guy who went to a ****ty situation in NY which stunted his development. 
 

That’s the thing that gives me confidence with sticking at 2nd and taking Maye/Williams. I feel good about Peters, backed by Harris, creating a great environment for a young QB to have the best chance of succeeding.

[Command The 414]

3 minutes ago, Ball Security said:

 

 

I do wonder what Darnold’s career is going to look like. If he’s going to have a renaissance after working with Shanahan to have a lower to mid tier starter ceiling. He’s a guy who went to a ****ty situation in NY which stunted his development. 
 

 

Funny you bring him up… he’s a FA and I know I’m falling into the connect the dots as we love to fall into but I wonder with a possible trade Howell or even keep him scenario would Peters entertain the thought of bringing Darnold in as a QB competition or a back up to a rookie… I too think he’s got something and to be honest under Kyle I think Sam Darnold would ball out just like Purdy is

[veteranskinsfan]

Even if we pick a quarterback at number 2, I wish there was a way to trade up to get Marvin Harrison Jr. at wide receiver.  He will not likely be a bust.  His dad was a winner.

[Command The 414]

Just now, veteranskinsfan said:

Even if we pick a quarterback at number 2, I wish there was a way to trade up to get Marvin Harrison Jr. at wide receiver.  He will not likely be a bust.  His dad was a winner.

Me too …As much as we need a QB man if there is ever a guy who I believe would make any QB even better it’s MHJ… if only Howell would have finished like he started out… then all the QB talk wouldnt been had and we’d be sitting pretty for drafting MHJ

[The Consigliere]

13 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

McCarthy has the look and feel of a 10 year journeyman backup. Hardest of passes.

I feel the same way, but its still worth noting, dude was a 4 star, I think 5th or 6th rated QB in his recruiting class, produced. I don't expect him to be legit, but that's still impressive resume so far, but yeah, I want no part of it, especially with a 1st to 2nd round grade. late 2nd to 3rd, if i didn't have a high 1st, sure, but I do, so no. 

[Command The 414]

2 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

I feel the same way, but its still worth noting, dude was a 4 star, I think 5th or 6th rated QB in his recruiting class, produced. I don't expect him to be legit, but that's still impressive resume so far, but yeah, I want no part of it, especially with a 1st to 2nd round grade. late 2nd to 3rd, if i didn't have a high 1st, sure, but I do, so no. 

Chad Henne 2.0 or the 1 QB we had from Michigan Todd Collins  lol 😝 

Edited January 20 by Command The 414

[CjSuAvE22]

If Tom Brady was coming out in this draft all of you would be hard passes just like you guys are doing for JJ MCcarthy, truth is there are zero generational qbs in this draft and everyone coming out is an educated guess at if they will be good or not. Some are loved by the media (Williams/Maye) some aren't, I really think if we get a haul we should trade the pick we need to rebuild the team and aren't a QB away. 

[bearrock]

2 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

Yes, you can split that hair as finely as you'd like and it still doesn't change my point that taking a QB isn't a large risk and that QB better be good. It's not an automatic choice.

 Oh sure.  Definitely a risk with QBs wherever you take em.  And whether there's two QBs worth taking back to back at the top is something the new staff will have to scout and determine 

[RandyHolt]

9 hours ago, skinny21 said:

Would be pretty wild if Ben Johnson were hired and firmly believes in Howell…

 

(Whether that’s Howell compared with the other available qbs, or Howell plus draft ammo - possibly w/ a trade back - over the other guys)

 

I say Ben Johnson due to the UNC connections of course

Howell to Harrison! Touchdown, Washington Red Wolves!

 

Howell is not a write off in my book and shouldn't be for anyone that fully digests the amount of dysfunction he endured, amid 3 straight years of new playbooks.  He almost had the year I expected from him less maybe ~15 sacks 8 INT (edit which is almost expected with his insane amount of pass attempts). Expectations are important to keep in check yet we most all fail to do so which heavily shape opinions. With nothing more than 50 years of watching QBs play in their first full season of play, I predict Caleb will struggle to meet expectations of him.

 

Writing is on the wall for us needing a QB sure but I want Howell retained as insurance despite the drama fans perceive from his presence behind Caleb or Maye. Look at 2nd half all star Jordan Love. Some simply need more time. Or, a full compliment of young stud WRs like Green Bay has.

 

LOL at the Jets paying more for Lazard than Love's fleet of current WRs. That's a question I want asked - will we even consider Harrison?? From Howell, of course.

 

MEGA Late edit. Our collective WR play was HORRIBLE this year. We can blame EB but they didnt do Howell many favors. Any favors.

Edited January 21 by RandyHolt

[ThatNFLChick]

It's Super Bowl or fired for McCarthy next season

 

 

 

 

[DWinzit]

^^^McCarthy, a lame duck coach in 2024...sweet!

[seantaylor=god]

Just curious- since its almost a certainty we draft a QB at 2 (or trade down and draft one) or even take a QB later, what are your thoughts on a rookie QB starting immediately vs sitting?

 

Any issue with Howell starting the season if he’s outperforming rookie? Trust the coach? Or is it a deal where even if rookie is a little behind it’s worth him starting to gain experience, especially since we don’t anticipate a playoff caliber team next year anyway? 
 

I would have no issue if Howell starts over rookie but also would be fine if rookie starts, even if he struggles initially. 

[ThatNFLChick]

3 minutes ago, seantaylor=god said:

Just curious- since its almost a certainty we draft a QB at 2 (or trade down and draft one) or even take a QB later, what are your thoughts on a rookie QB starting immediately vs sitting?

 

Any issue with Howell starting the season if he’s outperforming rookie? Trust the coach? Or is it a deal where even if rookie is a little behind it’s worth him starting to gain experience, especially since we don’t anticipate a playoff caliber team next year anyway? 
 

I would have no issue if Howell starts over rookie but also would be fine if rookie starts, even if he struggles initially. 

 

It's only beneficial for a rookie QB to sit if they are sitting behind and learning from a great QB. Rodgers sitting behind Favre and Love sitting behind Rodgers is not the same as anyone sitting behind Howell. 

 

I don't think people get what the value is from sitting. It's not about sitting and learning from any old QB lol. It's about learning from QBs who have had great success. Louis Riddick explained it perfectly yesterday (at 2:00):

 

 

[Warhead36]

14 minutes ago, seantaylor=god said:

Just curious- since its almost a certainty we draft a QB at 2 (or trade down and draft one) or even take a QB later, what are your thoughts on a rookie QB starting immediately vs sitting?

 

Any issue with Howell starting the season if he’s outperforming rookie? Trust the coach? Or is it a deal where even if rookie is a little behind it’s worth him starting to gain experience, especially since we don’t anticipate a playoff caliber team next year anyway? 
 

I would have no issue if Howell starts over rookie but also would be fine if rookie starts, even if he struggles initially. 

You dont draft a QB at 2 and have him sit behind a guy who led the league in sacks and picks. This aint a Mahomes and Smith or Love and Rodgers situation.

[Koolblue13]

Ouch

[Warhead36]

Howell looked good at times. I think there is a chance he could be a decent starter after a soft reset on another team but your ultimate team success is limited and he doesnt have a high

ceiling.

 

Houston was in the same situation with Davis Mills. They took a home run swing and smashed it. We gotta do the same. Go big or go home.

Edited January 20 by Warhead36

[Dark Acre]

8 hours ago, CjSuAvE22 said:

I really think if we get a haul we should trade the pick we need to rebuild the team and aren't a QB away. 

Tomorrow, tomorrow, I'll love you tomorrow, it's only a QB away.

While I've generally been on the "trade-down-for-a-haul"-type fan, I think it's about time we drafted a QB in the top 3 w/o trading assets to get there.

[The Consigliere]

10 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

Yes, you can split that hair as finely as you'd like and it still doesn't change my point that taking a QB isn't a large risk and that QB better be good. It's not an automatic choice.

It doesn't matter. You can't with without one period, and it's nearly impossible to land them outside of round 1 and in particular outside of the top end of round 1. Even when you lay out the past with exceptions like Brady or Wilson, we still have more than 75% of Conference QB's being high end first round draftees. You talk about 2nd overall pick QB's but there have been a handful over the past 50 years. Not a lot, a handful, and hell, the biggest hit in decades was literally last year. 

 

Is it a risk? Sort of, but not really. What's a worse risk? Trying to do this without a legit QB? Or trying to do this the only way it works 95% of the time? And the fact that if you flub at something this big, well, you get to do what Chicago, Carolina (would have), Arizona, NYG, NYJ over and over have done. Do it again. Or, we could repeat 1993-2023, which other than 1994, and 2012, was largely doing your plan. I don't get why SO MANY people are fine w/this? Didn't you get sick of it the previous thirty years? The Anything but dear god not QB method? Why on earth are you guys okay with it? No idea. We miss? The horror?!?!?! So freaking what. We try again the next year. BFD. It's been thirty years of not doing this. How about we try QB, as others have said we dont even need to trade up, so if it blows up in our face we can try again next year or the next w/no assets borrowed from the future in this present. I'm utterly perplexed with the aversion to this? It's like a big chunk of the fan base got injected with the George Allen/Joe Gibbs Way, and they just keep Jonesing for an approach that died as a viable method of team building decades ago. It's weird. We deserve to have better than this rent a vet bull----, and sub adequate day 2 and day 3 QB bs. Will we get that better option? Maybe. But if we don't, try again next year. I'm not doing another 30, 20 or even 10 years of the horse ---- we did 1993-2023. Beyond over a method that patently obviously doesn't work without monstrous blind luck being involved. 

 

I don't mean to come across as surly, but I seriously am baffled at the aversion to going QB here. You may not like Maye, but the consensus is he's one of the best QB's to come out in years, so if they're right, we've solved it, and if they're wrong we'll suck enough to try again soon. It's a win win. There IS NO RISK. We already suck, you can't suck much more than 31st in the league level bad. Who cares? It is infinitely better than what we've been the past 30 years, which is typically 7th-15th worst every single year without fail. 

[OtisDriftwood25]

Just remember in the final 4 there will be only one quarterback selected in the top 5. Either Baker Mayfield or Jared Goff. CJ Stroud didn’t have much going for him today but I thought he played too passive second half. Throwing 3rd and 8 out of bounds down by 14 points in 4th quarter. 

[Koolblue13]

8 hours ago, The Consigliere said:

It doesn't matter. You can't with without one period, and it's nearly impossible to land them outside of round 1 and in particular outside of the top end of round 1. Even when you lay out the past with exceptions like Brady or Wilson, we still have more than 75% of Conference QB's being high end first round draftees. You talk about 2nd overall pick QB's but there have been a handful over the past 50 years. Not a lot, a handful, and hell, the biggest hit in decades was literally last year. 

 

Is it a risk? Sort of, but not really. What's a worse risk? Trying to do this without a legit QB? Or trying to do this the only way it works 95% of the time? And the fact that if you flub at something this big, well, you get to do what Chicago, Carolina (would have), Arizona, NYG, NYJ over and over have done. Do it again. Or, we could repeat 1993-2023, which other than 1994, and 2012, was largely doing your plan. I don't get why SO MANY people are fine w/this? Didn't you get sick of it the previous thirty years? The Anything but dear god not QB method? Why on earth are you guys okay with it? No idea. We miss? The horror?!?!?! So freaking what. We try again the next year. BFD. It's been thirty years of not doing this. How about we try QB, as others have said we dont even need to trade up, so if it blows up in our face we can try again next year or the next w/no assets borrowed from the future in this present. I'm utterly perplexed with the aversion to this? It's like a big chunk of the fan base got injected with the George Allen/Joe Gibbs Way, and they just keep Jonesing for an approach that died as a viable method of team building decades ago. It's weird. We deserve to have better than this rent a vet bull----, and sub adequate day 2 and day 3 QB bs. Will we get that better option? Maybe. But if we don't, try again next year. I'm not doing another 30, 20 or even 10 years of the horse ---- we did 1993-2023. Beyond over a method that patently obviously doesn't work without monstrous blind luck being involved. 

 

I don't mean to come across as surly, but I seriously am baffled at the aversion to going QB here. You may not like Maye, but the consensus is he's one of the best QB's to come out in years, so if they're right, we've solved it, and if they're wrong we'll suck enough to try again soon. It's a win win. There IS NO RISK. We already suck, you can't suck much more than 31st in the league level bad. Who cares? It is infinitely better than what we've been the past 30 years, which is typically 7th-15th worst every single year without fail. 

I have zero aversion to going QB at #2, which I've said multiple times.

 

I'm just not saying that it's a 100% lock that we automatically have to and that any other option is not a possibility. 

 

And I'm certainly not going to be an asshole to anyone that entertains the possibility that our long term plan, which we've been told is happening, may not mean we are forcing a QB at the second pick.

 

When Peters went to SF, they brought in a vet and built a solid foundation for a team. Then went balls out for a QB, missed but struck out and got lucky with Purdy.

 

Peters first year in SF they signed 2 FA QBs and drafted one later and it was a surprise that they didn't move up on Trubisky and they passed on Mahommes.

 

2018 they traded for Jimmy G midseason. 2019 they needed a QB had the #2 pick and what did they do? The went DE. Sounds familiar    But they didn't reach for Lock or Haskins.

 

Then they doubled down on DL the next year, still needing a QB.

 

This is starting to sound familiar.

 

Broncos sucked in 2011 and had a QB controversy between Kyle Orton and Tebow, so what did they do in 2012? Sign Payton Manning

 

The point is, where Peters has been they have brought in FA QBs to run the team, before going to the draft and drafted DL (Von Miller, Kinlaw, Bosa) in the top 5.

 

Don't be surprised if we sign a QB, drop back and draft Verse at 6 is my point.

[Est.1974]

@Koolblue13 good post, I don’t think we stay at 2 personally, plenty of possible outcomes still on the table IMO

[Warhead36]

7 hours ago, OtisDriftwood25 said:

Just remember in the final 4 there will be only one quarterback selected in the top 5. Either Baker Mayfield or Jared Goff. CJ Stroud didn’t have much going for him today but I thought he played too passive second half. Throwing 3rd and 8 out of bounds down by 14 points in 4th quarter. 

He was a rookie who just won a playoff game playing on the road against the best team in the league. Give me a break.

[KDawg]

4 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

I have zero aversion to going QB at #2, which I've said multiple times.

 

I'm just not saying that it's a 100% lock that we automatically have to and that any other option is not a possibility. 

 

And I'm certainly not going to be an asshole to anyone that entertains the possibility that our long term plan, which we've been told is happening, may not mean we are forcing a QB at the second pick.

 

When Peters went to SF, they brought in a vet and built a solid foundation for a team. Then went balls out for a QB, missed but struck out and got lucky with Purdy.

 

Peters first year in SF they signed 2 FA QBs and drafted one later and it was a surprise that they didn't move up on Trubisky and they passed on Mahommes.

 

2018 they traded for Jimmy G midseason. 2019 they needed a QB had the #2 pick and what did they do? The went DE. Sounds familiar    But they didn't reach for Lock or Haskins.

 

Then they doubled down on DL the next year, still needing a QB.

 

This is starting to sound familiar.

 

Broncos sucked in 2011 and had a QB controversy between Kyle Orton and Tebow, so what did they do in 2012? Sign Payton Manning

 

The point is, where Peters has been they have brought in FA QBs to run the team, before going to the draft and drafted DL (Von Miller, Kinlaw, Bosa) in the top 5.

 

Don't be surprised if we sign a QB, drop back and draft Verse at 6 is my point.

All of this could happen, I don’t think it’s a high likelihood. But it absolutely could. 
 

Though passing on a QB and going edge rusher would be a really bold start for Peters considering how fresh that wound is for this fanbase. 

[Koolblue13]

1 minute ago, KDawg said:

All of this could happen, I don’t think it’s a high likelihood. But it absolutely could. 
 

Though passing on a QB and going edge rusher would be a really bold start for Peters considering how fresh that wound is for this fanbase. 

I'd be shocked if we went DE over LT, but those are premium payout positions and either ona rookie deal is gold for a roster build.

 

If Verse fits with Von Miller and Bosa type impact players, I think he's on the table. Danielle Hunter or any other high end FA DE is going to be insanely expensive. 

4 minutes ago, Est.1974 said:

@Koolblue13 good post, I don’t think we stay at 2 personally, plenty of possible outcomes still on the table IMO

Thanks man. It's an odd offseason with two really good FA vet QBs in Wilson and Kirk and we could really flip #2 into a lot of picks down the road.

[Warhead36]

I think people are missing the general point here.

 

The fact is, you need a franchise QB to sustain success in the NFL. This is irrefutable. 
 

The best way to getting one is drafting your own and developing him. Yes, there are examples of trades and FAs, but they are very rare. Banking on a Peyton Manning or Tom Brady to be available is silly. 

So you gotta draft one. Historically the best QBs are drafted in the first round. No they arent all top 5 or top 10, but theyre all high picks. Again, there are exceptions, but you cant bank on finding a Brady or Purdy. Their teams didnt draft them with the thought theyd be their starting QB. 
 

So here we are, sitting with the SECOND pick in the draft in what appears to be a loaded QB class. Now does that guarantee anything? Of course not. But by all counts there are three(at least)highly prized QB prospects. We have an opportunity to take one. A franchise QB is a necessity. 
 

But but but “we can trade down and get someone later.” Sure, that is possible. But again, how do you know the guy you want will be there? Youre settling for a lesser caliber prospect at the most important position and not even guaranteeing yourself a chance at getting him. 
 

But but but “we can build up our team and try to get one next year”. Sure, but what if there is noone good available? Could be like 2022 where all the QB options sucked. Or we end up winning like 7 games and stuck in a position where we have to reach for someone not as highly regarded. Or there are good prospects but none available for us because we dont have a high enough pick. Sure it could be like when Love and Jackson were available later in the 1st but how likely is that? Youre passing up an opportunity where you KNOW you have a shot at a franchise altering QB in the FIRST year of a new regime for a complete unknown.

 

But but but “what if the new FO doesn’t like any of the QB options?” Ok thats a possibility and if thats truly the case we have to respect that and trust their evaluation, but it would certainly be a big time minority opinion. But as of right now we can only work under the assumption that, at the very least, there are three legit big time QB prospects and we got a shot at one. We got a shot at getting out of football poverty for the next decade. Lets take it.