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

[KDawg]

4 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

We all know the Vikings could not have offered 5 future 1s...  LOL  However, assuming the Pats are locked in to taking a QB at 3, what if the Vikes did come at the team with a payload - like 3 1s and 2 2s. Not saying they would do it, almost 100% certain they would not come close if thy offered at all. But what if they did? Do you jump on that? Take Nix or Penix or someonw else later? 

I’m sure they tried. The Colts probably said, “hey, no can do. Listen, that’s not even allowed. So… no. But thanks for the call.”

[Est.1974]

4 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

We all know the Vikings could not have offered 5 future 1s...  LOL  However, assuming the Pats are locked in to taking a QB at 3, what if the Vikes did come at the team with a payload - like 3 1s and 2 2s. Not saying they would do it, almost 100% certain they would not come close if thy offered at all. But what if they did? Do you jump on that? Take Nix or Penix or someonw else later? 

You know that would definitely have to be considered. The value on the #2 pick is massive. The right people in the FO should have an open mind to that kind of trade.

[ThatNFLChick]

 

[illone]

If someone offers that type of haul for the #2 pick, I’d be all over that. 
 

welcome to washington JJ McCarthy 😂

[mistertim]

23 minutes ago, illone said:

If someone offers that type of haul for the #2 pick, I’d be all over that. 
 

welcome to washington JJ McCarthy 😂

 

Only if you already truly believed that mid-first QB is going to be a stud before the trade offer. Otherwise, what's the point? If whoever trades up ends up with an elite QB for the next decade and you end up with a middling QB and a handful of mediocre role players then that's an enormous L.

[PeterMP]

12 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Only if you already truly believed that mid-first QB is going to be a stud before the trade offer. Otherwise, what's the point? If whoever trades up ends up with an elite QB for the next decade and you end up with a middling QB and a handful of mediocre role players then that's an enormous L.

 

You take it because even teams that believe they are getting a stud QB don't always get a stud QB.  A trade that like increases your chances of getting a stud QB because just have a lot more resources to putting to a QB.  You take whoever this year, and then if there are any questions about the guy (his work ethic whatever), you can double down on QB next year with another pick.  More picks increase your chances of getting a stud QB.  

 

Now, you do have to balance that with having the higher pick.  But looking at where the guys in the NFL title game were drafted/came from suggest that putting a top  3 or 4 pick into a QB doesn't make much sense (Goff was a high pick, but the Lions got him pretty cheaply though I guess it did take them Stafford who was also a high pick but they also got much more than Goff.  It would be interesting to know what it would have cost a 3rd team to get into that trade for Goff.)

Edited January 25 by PeterMP

[HTTRDynasty]

It would be an interesting exercise if one of these guys like Schefter, Breer, etc. asked personnel guys how many first round picks they'd give up for Mahomes, Allen, etc.  Would they give up their whole drafts for multiple years?  Would they give up more for Stroud given his age and salary cap impact vs. the other guys? 

 

It would be fascinating to see how the league views the value of multiple first round picks (+ more) vs. blue chip franchise QBs.

[The Consigliere]

I have to admit, 5 firsts from an aging team like Minnesota. Lol, legal or not, I'd do it. Really need a "Fenster" from the Usual Suspects emoji for that kind of deal. 

[Tyler Spiers]

2 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

I have to admit, 5 firsts from an aging team like Minnesota. Lol, legal or not, I'd do it. Really need a "Fenster" from the Usual Suspects emoji for that kind of deal. 

5 firsts? Is that even possible? Yes you take that, you'd be setting up the team for success for 20 years.

[mistertim]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

You take it because even teams that believe they are getting a stud QB don't always get a stud QB.  A trade that like increases your chances of getting a stud QB because just have a lot more resources to putting to a QB.  You take whoever this year, and then if there are any questions about the guy (his work ethic whatever), you can double down on QB next year with another pick.  More picks increase your chances of getting a stud QB.  

 

Now, you do have to balance that with having the higher pick.  But looking at where the guys in the NFL title game were drafted/came from suggest that putting a top  3 or 4 pick into a QB doesn't make much sense (Goff was a high pick, but the Lions got him pretty cheaply though I guess it did take them Stafford who was also a high pick but they also got much more than Goff.  It would be interesting to know what it would have cost a 3rd team to get into that trade for Goff.)

 

This is why I said you only take that trade if the QB who you really like and think will hit and be your franchise QB is the mid-first guy you'd be able to get if you traded back. Otherwise you don't take it just to say you have more draft capital.

 

Let's say Washington is at 2 and really thinks Maye is the guy. The Vikings call with a huge offer. You immediately turn it down because having an elite franchise QB for the next decade will trump any offer they put together to move up. But let's say they really think JJ McCarthy is the guy. Then you probably take the trade because you're pretty sure he'll still be there at 11.

 

Everything is through the lens of which QB you love and believe will become elite and where he sits in the likely draft boards of teams. 

 

I also don't think more picks automatically increase your chances of getting a stud QB by any appreciable margin, unless you're only talking about 1st round picks. The hit rate on 1st round QBs isn't great, but the hit rate on QBs after the 1st round is absolutely abysmal and can mostly be ignored from a statistical standpoint. 

Edited January 26 by mistertim

[Koolblue13]

If a team offered a Watson type trade for the $2 I'd be hard pressed not to take it. If it was 2ns, instead of the 3rd and 4rth, plus a player like Hunter, I'm not saying no.

[HTTRDynasty]

 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, mistertim said:

 

This is why I said you only take that trade if the QB who you really like and think will hit and be your franchise QB is the mid-first guy you'd be able to get if you traded back. Otherwise you don't take it just to say you have more draft capital.

 

Let's say Washington is at 2 and really thinks Maye is the guy. The Vikings call with a huge offer. You immediately turn it down because having an elite franchise QB for the next decade will trump any offer they put together to move up. But let's say they really think JJ McCarthy is the guy. Then you probably take the trade because you're pretty sure he'll still be there at 11.

 

Everything is through the lens of which QB you love and believe will become elite and where he sits in the likely draft boards of teams. 

 

I also don't think more picks automatically increase your chances of getting a stud QB by any appreciable margin, unless you're only talking about 1st round picks. The hit rate on 1st round QBs isn't great, but the hit rate on QBs after the 1st round is absolutely abysmal and can mostly be ignored from a statistical standpoint. 

 

Let's imagine you think Maye is a going to be a stud QB.  The Vikings call with a huge offer.  You turn them down because you THINK you have an elite QB for the next decade that will trump any offer.

 

Then you draft Maye, and he gets hurt in 1st or 2nd season (e.g. RGIII or Wentz).  Or you're just wrong, and the guy is never great.  Meanwhile somebody in the mid-first round of next years QB becomes great.

 

Even if you think the guy you are going to draft is great you can't ignore the value of having multiple picks to try and get the guy because people are wrong when they think they have the guy.  Essentially every team drafting a QB near the top thinks they are getting the guy.  Actually having a guy at QB is great, but just because you think Maye (or whoever at 2) is you can't ignore the value many picks in case you are wrong.  People don't like to do that, but if they're smart, they'll do it.  And passing on a really good deal would be a mistake no matter what they believe.

 

Since the post that started this specifically said 3 first round picks (3 first and 2 nds), then yes it could be a 2 first round picks in the next 3 years, and you'd still end up ahead (by 2 2nd round picks).  

 

You also can't just ignore lower picks because the return on lower round picks is low.  How many 5th round picks is the 2nd pick in the draft worth?  Even with a low return rate on QBs taken in the 5th round or later, a ton of picks is going to increase your chances.  The hit rate of getting a good QB at 2 is much higher than the 5th round or later.  But the 2nd round pick over all is going to be worth a ton of 5th round picks.

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

Trade back so we can hoard a lot of picks…so we can trade up in another draft…to draft a QB. Doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

 

We had to have so much suck and luck to climb all the way to the number 2 pick. No way we trade down. I don’t care what the offer is. 
 

If we’re wrong, then of course there will be second guessing. But we can’t approach the draft with that mentality. 
 

 

[mistertim]

21 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Let's imagine you think Maye is a going to be a stud QB.  The Vikings call with a huge offer.  You turn them down because you THINK you have an elite QB for the next decade that will trump any offer.

 

Then you draft Maye, and he gets hurt in 1st or 2nd season (e.g. RGIII or Wentz).  Or you're just wrong, and the guy is never great.  Meanwhile somebody in the mid-first round of next years QB becomes great.

 

Even if you think the guy you are going to draft is great you can't ignore the value of having multiple picks to try and get the guy because people are wrong when they think they have the guy.  Essentially every team drafting a QB near the top thinks they are getting the guy.  Actually having a guy at QB is great, but just because you think Maye (or whoever at 2) is you can't ignore the value many picks in case you are wrong.  People don't like to do that, but if they're smart, they'll do it.  And passing on a really good deal would be a mistake no matter what they believe.

 

Since the post that started this specifically said 3 first round picks (3 first and 2 nds), then yes it could be a 2 first round picks in the next 3 years, and you'd still end up ahead (by 2 2nd round picks).  

 

You also can't just ignore lower picks because the return on lower round picks is low.  How many 5th round picks is the 2nd pick in the draft worth?  Even with a low return rate on QBs taken in the 5th round or later, a ton of picks is going to increase your chances.  The hit rate of getting a good QB at 2 is much higher than the 5th round or later.  But the 2nd round pick over all is going to be worth a ton of 5th round picks.

 

This feels like we're getting into a Moneyball-esque quantitative vs qualitative debate at this point. Is your entire view that the fact that there are QB busts means you should ignore the scouting process and just play a numbers game?

 

I think the statistical quantitative draft data is relevant, but so is the qualitative scouting process where you grade players based on whatever criteria you've established.

 

If you truly think the guy at 2 is the one, then that should be your starting point. Otherwise there's not much purpose to scouting at all, outside of grouping QBs into rough tiers and relative draft range and then just throwing darts and seeing which one you hit, which probably 3/4 of the people on this message board could do with reasonable accuracy.

 

And yes, sometimes you're going to be wrong. But that's pretty much an accepted part of the process and the risk. There are plenty of teams that wish they'd drafted a different QB or had taken that trade offer. But there are also plenty of teams who hit on their guy and are very glad that they didn't take the trade.

 

And I'm not necessarily saying ignore lower round picks insofar as never using them on QBs. I'm saying that, statistically, the hit rate is so low that the assumption there should be that the guy won't do anything. So you take a flier after the 1st on guys with upside in the hope that they could at least develop into a decent backup, not that there's much chance of him being your franchise QB.

Edited January 26 by mistertim

[Dark Acre]

22 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

You also can't just ignore lower picks because the return on lower round picks is low.  How many 5th round picks is the 2nd pick in the draft worth?  Even with a low return rate on QBs taken in the 5th round or later, a ton of picks is going to increase your chances.  The hit rate of getting a good QB at 2 is much higher than the 5th round or later.  But the 2nd round pick over all is going to be worth a ton of 5th round picks.

I'm sure there's a way to acquire every pick in the 5th.  EVERY.  Most of us have come close on one of those draft simulators.  Let's go for it.  Gotta be some diamonds in that rough.  It's not like 6th or 7th rounders, and as 5th rounders - cheap contracts.  DO IT!

[mistertim]

8 minutes ago, Dark Acre said:

I'm sure there's a way to acquire every pick in the 5th.  EVERY.  Most of us have come close on one of those draft simulators.  Let's go for it.  Gotta be some diamonds in that rough.  It's not like 6th or 7th rounders, and as 5th rounders - cheap contracts.  DO IT!

 

  Imagine trading back relentlessly and picking something like 20 QBs in one draft and then trying to figure out a way to evaluate them all over the next year.

[CommanderDOOM]

2 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

This is why… the guy….

Maybe u know the guy is mostly relative to said situation he’s dealt. Maybe you’re the guy. And as the guy u know how to spot the guy. That every year there’s a guy. And your gonna hire the right guys to coach up these guys . And with more premium picks, you can build a dynasty.

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, mistertim said:

 

This feels like we're getting into a Moneyball-esque quantitative vs qualitative debate at this point. Is your entire view that the fact that there are QB busts means you should ignore the scouting process and just play a numbers game?

 

I think the statistical quantitative draft data is relevant, but so is the qualitative scouting process where you grade players based on whatever criteria you've established.

 

If you truly think the guy at 2 is the one, then that should be your starting point. Otherwise there's not much purpose to scouting at all, outside of grouping QBs into rough tiers and relative draft range and then just throwing darts and seeing which one you hit, which probably 3/4 of the people on this message board could do with reasonable accuracy.

 

And yes, sometimes you're going to be wrong. But that's pretty much an accepted part of the process and the risk. There are plenty of teams that wish they'd drafted a different QB or had taken that trade offer. But there are also plenty of teams who hit on their guy and are very glad that they didn't take the trade.

 

And I'm not necessarily saying ignore lower round picks insofar as never using them on QBs. I'm saying that, statistically, the hit rate is so low that the assumption there should be that the guy won't do anything. So you take a flier after the 1st on guys with upside in the hope that they could at least develop into a decent backup, not that there's much chance of him being your franchise QB.

 

I'm not saying that you ignore scouting.  But you also can't act you're scouting is full proof.  To ignore that you could be wrong is ridiculous.  You can't ignore the simple statistics/math of the situation and based on most reasonable historical value that 3 first and 2 2's is extremely good value for the 2nd pick in the draft (when you take into account where the Vikings are drafting this year).  

 

Having 3 cracks at putting 1st round picks to the QB and still having 2 2nd round picks extra is attractive.  Especially when you look at where the QBs playing in the title game were picked.  

Edited January 26 by PeterMP

[Conn]

 

This one goes out to (most) of the trade down people. 

[mistertim]

8 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I'm not saying that you ignore scouting.  But you also can't act you're scouting is full proof.  To ignore that you could be wrong is ridiculous.  You can't ignore the simple statistics/math of the situation and based on most reasonable historical value that 3 first and 2 2's is extremely good value for the 2nd pick in the draft (when you take into account where the Vikings are drafting this year).  

 

Having 3 cracks at putting 1st round picks to the QB and still having 2 2nd round picks extra is attractive.  Especially when you look at where the QBs playing in the title game were picked.  

 

I don't think scouts should or do ignore that they could be wrong. As I said, it's pretty much an accepted possibility and risk. 

 

When it comes to the extra 1st round picks, sure, in theory they're great to have. But you have no clue what their value will be. It could end up being the 1st overall pick with a stud blue chip QB prospect sitting there. It could be a 30th pick in a crappy QB draft and nobody worth taking there. So betting on those unknown future 1sts is just as much of a gamble when it comes to getting a QB, because they're inherently unknowable variables

 

So many aspects would have to be taken into account when thinking about that trade. How good are the prospects we like and could take at 2? How good is this QB class overall? How confident are we that we can find a franchise guy in the second tier of QBs? How confident are we about what the next year's QB class looks like? How comfortable would we be with potentially having to use those extra picks to then trade back up next draft if need be?

 

That's why I said it has to be a combination of qualitative and quantitative processes.

[Conn]

Edit: wrong thread

Edited January 26 by Conn

[Warhead36]

If you love a QB and truly believe he is the guy you dont F around. 
 

Kicking the QB can is what effed Rivera.

[Professor_Nutter_Butter]

9 hours ago, Conn said:

 

This one goes out to (most) of the trade down people. 

Not to jinx it because I'm a Tennessee fan, but Nico looks like he could be good. Just needs to bulk up a little. 

[mistertim]

1 hour ago, Warhead36 said:

If you love a QB and truly believe he is the guy you dont F around. 
 

Kicking the QB can is what effed Rivera.

 

Yeah, I understand the statistical viewpoint, and the data does matter. But IMO you can't treat it like a Moneyball situation in baseball because QB is such a ridiculously valuable position compared to all others on a football team. Kicking the QB can down the road in the belief that stockpiling picks will eventually land you a franchise guy somehow is a really good way to have a mediocre at best team and get fired.