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

[skinsfan66]

1 hour ago, The Consigliere said:

Don't agree w/your way of ranking them, at all, honestly. 

 

But part of this is probably based on simply what we consider busts. For me a bust of a QB in round 1 is a guy who literally flames out and cannot play in the league, period. That is a Zach Wilson, a Blaine Gabbert, a Jake Locker.

 

You classify Tua, Trevor and Kyler as a touch above a bust (so I guess, just bad?)

 

Tua was crap in '20 and largely crap in '21, and a top 15 starter or better in '22 and '23. That's definitely better than 15% above a bust.

Lawrence has basically been average for two seasons and crap as a rookie. That's Average.

 

Kyler was a monster, mega hit producer basically until '22. He was a flat out stud from '19-'21 before he got hurt, and his mental makeup personality concerns started to worry people. He was top 15 as a rook with the team that finished dead last in the NFL in '18. 14th in '20, top 7 in '21, before he got hurt and dropped into the teens in '22, and early 20's after missing a big chunk of '23. You just have him wrong, period. I don't know if he'll ever be the same post injury and with the mental make up concerns, but when healthy he was above average to superb in his first 3 years w/a team that was horrific when he came in. That's a hit, period, when it comes to the draft.

 

As for Stafford, Ryan, and Cam, well they're different sorts, age and injuries did to Cam, what has now happened to Russell, but in their primes, both were mega elite, not just good, and Stafford and Matt Ryan? There's noone on the planet that views them as just good. They were habitually top 6-10 guys, the blue chips of the blue chips. If you want to say, well, they weren't Tom Brady, or Mahomes. Well no, but then again 99.9% of all QB's ever failed to reach that level, that's not just very good, that is 1st ballot HOF good. 

 

So no, your 1 in 10 chance to get a great one isn't right, nor your 15% to get a very good one. Look at QBR's, rankings, surrounding talent etc.

 

There's the God Tier:

Tom Brady, Mahomes, Manning, Rodgers, Montana, Elway, these guys appear about once every 10-15 years. 

 

There's the HOF Tier:

Ben Roth, Drew Brees, Phillip Rivers, Matt Stafford, Matt Ryan etc: The guys that produce HOF #'s, and are legit pro bowl types of the old school '80's/'90's version, not the bull--- crap one, these guys are perenially top 4-8 in the league caliber.

 

There's the good tier:

These are the Kirk Cousins, Kyler ('19-'21) Prime Russell Wilson, Ken O'Brien in his prime, more recently a season like Love's in '23 is a "good tier" season but of course not a good career, yet.

 

There's the adequates:

The prime Dalton, the Tua's etc, the guys you view as barely above a bust, are the guys that hit well enough to keep the starting job, but don't convince you a super bowl is in your future. The best example from the last decade is probably Derek Carr, consistently inside the top 12-18 in the league, but almost never inside the top 10. 

 

There's the "I'm not giving this guy a 2nd contract, but he aint Zach Wilson" tier:

Ryan Tannehill's, and Just Fields, and Danny Nickels (normally) would fit here. They aren't Wilson/Gabbert/Bortles/Locker level busts, but they are clearly not hits.

 

There's the "Oh ---- we did a Gabbert/Bortles/Wilson".

 

I think that's the way to rank them. Or at least my way anyway.

 

To give an example from recent years:

 

2015:

Winston-Adequate

Mariota: No 2nd Contract

 

2016:

Goff: Adequate/Good Tweener

Wentz: No 2nd Contract

 

2017:

Trubisky: No 2nd Contract/Oh ---- Tweener

Mahomes: God Tier

Watson: God Tier/Pro Bowler before the masseuse Assaults came out

 

2018:

Baker: Adequates

Darnold: No 2nd Contract

Rosen: "Oh -----"

Allen: HOF

Lamar: HOF

 

2019: 

Kyler: Pro Bowl Good Cousins Pre Injury

Danny Nickels: No 2nd Contract/Oh ---- Tweener

Haskins: Oh ----

 

2020: 

Burrow: God Tier

Tua: Adequates

Herbert: HOF

 

2021: 

Lawrence: Adequates

Wilson: Oh -----

Lance: Oh ----/injury related

Fields: No 2nd Contract

Mac Jones: No 2nd Contract

 

2022:

Pickett: No 2nd Contract/Oh ---- tweener

 

2023:

Young: 1 Oh ---- season

Stroud: 1 God Tier season

Richardson: Injury Exemption

 

So just from the post Luck Era circa 2015 through 2023:

 

25 guys:

God Tier: 3.5 (Watson pre injury/masseuse was God Tier)/25

HOF Tier: 3/25

Pro Bowl Good Tier: 1/25

Average/Adequates: 5/25

No 2nd Contracts: 7/25

Oh ---- busts: 5-6

 

 

I think my own list kind of echoes are own intuitions and the draft history of the position: Historically 1st round QB's are viewed as busting eventually about half the time. That's basically what we have here, around 12 guys their draft teams had no interest in keeping beyond 1 contract and were generally speaking, right to think that way. There's about 12 hits, in terms of being able to play starting QB in the league at an adequate, Good/Pro Bowl, HOF and god tier level, and we have Richardson, who pre injuries, was viewed as a big hit by nearly everyone and especially the Colts last summer and fall before he got hurt a second time in the first six weeks or so of the season, making it 12.5 or 13 hits out of 25 guys, basically right around 50 to 50+%. The God Tier and HOF hit rate sits close 25% and add Pro Bowler/Cousins type guy, that pushes that rate to about 30% to me anyway. Adequates, the sort of Baker Mayfield line to Trevor Lawrence disappointing kind of level right now, is about 20%. 

 

So in general, I think we almost agree at the chances of hitting on a very good to mega elite QB, you see it as a 25% chance, I see it as historically the last 8 years as about 30%. Your mega bust rate is way higher than mine, and I do think I'm right in my view of it, because I think there's a genuine tangible difference between guys like Baker Mayfield, Jameis Winston, Rams and early Lions Goff, and guys like Trubisky and Zach Wilson. A guy like Mayfield and and a guy like Winston could and can play in the league, period, they can start. And they're fine, but they aren't special or above average to good and will never be. Is that a bust? No. To me honestly, at any given time, somewhere between 66-70% of the starting jobs in the league are manned by Jason Campbell, Baker Mayfield, Derek Carr's, Chad Pennington type adequates, or a bit worse QBs, or crazy ones like Winston. That is a better fate, in terms of talent and production, then Zach Wilson's, and Mitch Trubisky's and Josh Rosen's by a lot. Guys who flat out cannot play (even if its probably better to draft a Rosen, or Wilson rather than a Pennington, Carr or Campbell (in the former case, you know you ----ed up immediately, and have to try again, if you draft a Carr or Pennington, you rationalize their inadequacies and limitations, failing to ever come close to contending in the process). 

 

 

You included every QB. He said top 5 picks overall since 2018 to be fair, like you I disagree on some rankings. Since we have been talking Blue Chippers and top 3 picks. I think there are about 4/5 Blue Chipper hits on that list and maybe 2/3 a little below.   8 hits out of 23 picks   10 total busts   3/5 to be determined. It's a 50/50 deal crap shoot since 2018. But the goal is super bowl winners and since 2018 there is only 1 (Stafford) versus 6 non top 5 pick winners.   1 loser (Burrow) taken top 5 out of the 6 losers.  1 in 6 chance for a superbowl winner.   2 in 12 chance for a super bowl QB.  

[DogofWar1]

I feel like there's a non-zero chance Chris Simm's whole schtick is to just take like, ESPN qb rankings, take the top 5 or 6, and pick one high one to drop and one low one to raise a bit, then hit send and watch the clicks roll in.

[Voice_of_Reason]

I’m listening to Thor Nystrom on Galdi.

 

literally every word out of his mouth is wrong. 
 

It’s amazing.  Guy is a no nothing moron.

[Conn]

3 hours ago, Est.1974 said:

Seattle after Penix says a lot. 
 

Teams think these ‘lower tier/mediocre’ prospects are worth a shot. 

The teams who don’t have a shot at the premium prospects, yeah. That does say a lot. They’re shopping in the discount section because they have to. 

[FootballZombie]

I like shopping in the luxury aisle.

 

Makes me feel important

[Skinsinparadise]

42 minutes ago, Conn said:

The teams who don’t have a shot at the premium prospects, yeah. That does say a lot. They’re shopping in the discount section because they have to. 

 

Yep.  If we were picking our usual 12-15ish, we'd be talking about Penix, Nix or maybe hoping McCarthy falls.

 

Just like if you have $10-$15 you are talking about lets say having dinner at Pizza Hut or McDonalds or Taco Bell.

 

If you got $50 plus per person you can talk about Mortons or whatever.

Edited March 7 by Skinsinparadise

[Conn]

3 hours ago, veteranskinsfan said:

Good article in Wash Post by Sam Fortier and Nicki Jhabvala- "How will the Commanders land a new QB? They have a lot of options."

If you read the article also check out the 195 comments from fans.  There are a lot of diverse opinions on what the Commanders should

do in this draft.

Yeah, I’m gonna read what a random sampling of fans think on a Washington Post article. Sure. I’m gonna do that to myself. Are you mad? 
 

We don’t advocate self-harm on this board (except when we supply links to watch on game day)!

[Est.1974]

9 minutes ago, Conn said:

The teams who don’t have a shot at the premium prospects, yeah. That does say a lot. They’re shopping in the discount section because they have to. 

But isn’t that a wasted pick for them because there’s nothing worthwhile in the discount section.

10 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

I like shopping in the luxury aisle.

 

Makes me feel important

So right….

[Skinsinparadise]

12 minutes ago, Conn said:

Yeah, I’m gonna read what a random sampling of fans think on a Washington Post article. Sure. I’m gonna do that to myself. Are you mad? 
 

We don’t advocate self-harm on this board (except when we supply links to watch on game day)!

 

Yep.

 

I'd add I've seen multiple fan polls -- radio station-twitter polls.  We posted them here about trading down versus staying put.  If I recall it was like 80% wanted to stay where they are at as to the pick.

 

No one here is arguing that there aren't fans who want to trade down.  It's part of the point.  Hence the debate.  

 

Regardless its not for the fans to decide but if it were trading down isn't the most popular option.  but forgetting the fans, its not typically a debatable point -- simply put, teams that need Qbs don't typically trade out of their pick.  It's not some wild dilemma where half the needy QB teams say screw it lets shop in that next tier and half stay put.  Almost every team stays put.

Edited March 7 by Skinsinparadise

[Voice_of_Reason]

27 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

If you got $50 plus per person you can talk about Mortons or whatever.

You clearly haven’t been to Morton’s in a while.

 

That actually is close to what a Supersized Big Mac Meal costs now.

 

 

[DogofWar1]

6 minutes ago, Est.1974 said:

But isn’t that a wasted pick for them because there’s nothing worthwhile in the discount section.

 

I mean, Penix is in the class of guys who, historically, are like 10% elite, 35% decent starters, 55% busts.

 

This is compared to the top prospects tier that is roughly 32% elite, 32% decent starters, 36% busts.

 

Or compared to guys below the 11-64 pick tier who hit like 10% of the time.

 

So it's worth it to pick the guys 11-64 because they do hit a little less than half of the time but you generally aren't getting elite talent.

[Skinsinparadise]

10 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

You clearly haven’t been to Morton’s in a while.

 

That actually is close to what a Supersized Big Mac Meal costs now.

 

 

[Conn]

12 minutes ago, Est.1974 said:

But isn’t that a wasted pick for them because there’s nothing worthwhile in the discount section.

You’re being disingenuous and it’s below you. 
 

The argument isn’t that there’s never anything worthwhile at all in groups of lesser heralded QB’s. Obviously. 
 

When you have no choice but to take the lower percentage swing on a QB, you may be moved to do so. And it may even be the best choice. That’s Seattle in this situation with Penix in the mid 1st or whatever.

 

You don’t voluntarily trade down and lower yourself into the situation where you are taking a lower percentage swing, when you started at #2 with a shot at a much higher percentage swing at QB. That’s us. 
 

It’s pretty simple but you think you can “gotcha” people into making your position seem more rational. Just accept that your minority position is radical, and you like it anyways. That’s totally fine. Or just say you don’t care what others say, you greatly dislike a prospect (let’s say Maye) and would buck conventional wisdom and trade down despite the risks. That’s also totally fine. But trying to massage the direction of the conversation or catch people in poorly laid logic traps to elevate your preferred decision as the smarter/more rational one is just kinda disingenuous. There has to be some kind of acknowledgement imo that you’re interested in making a riskier and more controversial play. Not pretending like it’s the obvious play. Then I think it would be easier to have these discussions. 

[Skinsinparadise]

12 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

You clearly haven’t been to Morton’s in a while.

 

That actually is close to what a Supersized Big Mac Meal costs now.

 

 

 

Last time training camp Richmond, I think like 5 years ago or something like that.  Saw Bruce come out of that Morton's one year.

Edited March 7 by Skinsinparadise

[mistertim]

45 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Yep.  If we were picking our usual 12-15ish, we'd be talking about Penix, Nix or maybe hoping McCarthy falls.

 

Just like if you have $10-$15 you are talking about lets say having dinner at Pizza Hut or McDonalds or Taco Bell.

 

If you got $50 plus per person you can talk about Mortons or whatever.

 

Most people: "**** yeah! Let's have some steak, baby!"

 

Some randos: "No, let's trade these steaks in for 6 McDonalds happy meals"

[The Consigliere]

4 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I saw that from Albright, the Justin Fields as a backup, that's intense.

Its gonna deliver a pretty harsh body blow to some of my dynasty teams. Hope wherever he goes, its way before May/June as it sounds like it will be. 

 

I assumed it would be for a 3rd and a day 3 pick this year or next, slight chance at a 2nd, sounds like it might be crappier than that. Any more steam to the idea that Howell demand might be out there? 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

Just now, The Consigliere said:

Its gonna deliver a pretty harsh body blow to some of my dynasty teams. Hope wherever he goes, its way before May/June as it sounds like it will be. 

 

I assumed it would be for a 3rd and a day 3 pick this year or next, slight chance at a 2nd, sounds like it might be crappier than that. Any more steam to the idea that Howell demand might be out there? 

 

 

don't know about Howell, I think the dominos have to fall first with other QBs. 

[Est.1974]

5 minutes ago, Conn said:

You’re being disingenuous and it’s below you. 
 

The argument isn’t that there’s never anything worthwhile at all in groups of lesser heralded QB’s. Obviously. 
 

When you have no choice but to take the lower percentage swing on a QB, you may be moved to do so. And it may even be the best choice. That’s Seattle in this situation with Penix in the mid 1st or whatever.

I just think there is an unpinned assumption around here on the ‘ratings’ of these prospects. It’s a bit bizarre to me. It’s wide open. Just because we are picking #2 doesn’t mean we will get the 2nd best QB. Or just because we pick who public opinion deems the 2nd best QB, let’s go that route.

 

We’ve brought in the most highly touted GM prospect available. You know what, part of me hopes he does something different and unconventional. The plan is to create a long standing successful franchise. That might not mean picking a 50/50 QB at #2 this year. Who knows. 
 

The thirst for a QB is potentially making people short sighted, IMO…….

 

And for the record, I want a QB.

[Voice_of_Reason]

11 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Last time training camp Richmond, I think like 5 years ago or something like that.  Saw Bruce come out of that Morton's one year.

That was pre-covid. 
 

The sautéed mushrooms now cost $50.

 

Ok that’s an exaggeration.  But unless you JUST get a steak, you can t get out of there for under $80-100, and if you want a drink, more than that.  
 

I went for a business dinner a few months ago and was aghast at the cost. 

[Est.1974]

16 minutes ago, Conn said:

There has to be some kind of acknowledgement imo that you’re interested in making a riskier and more controversial play.

I stated that a whole back to be honest. I don’t fancy safe at #2.

[RWJ]

23 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Two all beef, patties, special sauce, lettuce cheese pickles onions on a sesame seed bun!  Remember if you could say it in under so many seconds you could get a FREE "gut bomb" as my wife's former husband use to say "Big Mac" in the day?

18 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

Its gonna deliver a pretty harsh body blow to some of my dynasty teams. Hope wherever he goes, its way before May/June as it sounds like it will be. 

 

I assumed it would be for a 3rd and a day 3 pick this year or next, slight chance at a 2nd, sounds like it might be crappier than that. Any more steam to the idea that Howell demand might be out there? 

 

I think possibly Minny might be an option at best at #42 (2nd round) or at the very least top 10 3rd rounder.  

[The Consigliere]

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

The opinion is divided on who is the best among the top 3.  Maybe even top 4.  Different subject.

 

I am referring to the lets trade down group especially when the argument is couched in what if we are wrong. 

 

It's a mindset.  It's not something endemic to some quirky view that I and just a few stragglers share -- but its conventional talk that just about every mock draft geek type agrees on which is its worth the risk to shoot for the QB, when you need a QB, and you are picking high and its perceived to be a good draft for that spot.

 

If you shoot and miss.  You likely might still suck.  If you trade down and miss you likely won't suck as much because you added to the roster.

 

No one wants mediocrity.  So I don't mean it that literally.  But IMHO reading so many of the explanations for why many of the small but vocal minority wants to trade down seems to centers on the risk.   It comes off that the risk is we suck.  Trading down would at least mitigate the possibility of sucking. 

 

The thing I don't get is that after 30 years, don't they recognize that mediocre is worse than suck? It's much harder to climb from sub-mediocre (because that's what we've been, really, about a .375-.425 team for 30 years) to good/great, then it is to implode and rebuild. We've seen the Giants, Eagles, Bears, Lions, Niners, Packers, Rams, Cardinals, Panthers, Jets, Browns, Bengals, Texans, Colts, Jags, Chiefs, Raiders all totally implode sometimes, multiple times the past 25 years, and they've all made it to super bowls, or conference title games, or both during these decades. That's not too bad. You know what is bad? Being a Titans fan, or the otherside of that coin, being a Redskins/WFT fan, instead of the 8-9 to 10-7 Titans of the last 20 years, how about the 6-11/9-8 Redskins. ---- no. Give me the 2-15 cratering please. I will take rock bottoming every time, every day of the week over spending decades on end cycling back and forth between 6 and 9 wins over and over and over in 16 game season, or 6-10 wins in a 17 game season. Hell no. Let me rock bottom, I am not scared, at all. Nearly all the best teams of the past several decades had some rock bottoming before they got there. Very, very few exceptions. Even the Ravens used to be the Browns (poor Cleveland, they lose their Browns, and don't get a ravens, they just get another browns), take our lumps, and rebuild and if we fail, try again, no short term, bridge building bull---- anymore please. Failure does not scare me, unending mediocrity and sub-mediocrity does. 

[mistertim]

18 minutes ago, Est.1974 said:

I stated that a whole back to be honest. I don’t fancy safe at #2.

 

Safe is trading back and picking up a bunch of other players while either taking a 2nd tier QB or simply punting on the position. That's the "build a stacked team and hope we find a QB somehow" method. It hasn't worked for other teams and it hasn't worked for us for decades.

 

For the life of me I can't figure out why some people want to keep doing the exact same thing that's led to our 20+ years of torture, especially now that we have a decent FO and the #2 overall pick in a stacked QB class.

 

It's like the stars are aligning and instead of accepting it and staring up at the sky in wonder some people are saying "meh, **** that noise" and going back inside to watch reality TV.

[Skinsinparadise]

The safe thing is to trade back.  That's not really a debate.  It's the crux of the argument for trade downs.  More picks >> Lesser picks.

 

If you trade down for example and pick up two picks and shop in that next tier of QBs, even if that next tier fails, you still have two players you got from the trade down to mitigate the risk.

 

No one argues that teams prefer to pick in that 2nd tier aisle for QBs.  The argument is maybe we get lucky picking lower AND add players too.  But heck even if we fail at QB, we likely added a player or two who boost the roster.

 

Swinging at #2 isn't the safe thing to do.  it's the predictable -- what most teams do.  It's conventional.  So if someone wants to argue lets do this unconventional, I agree that with premise that its uncoventional to pass over picking at #2.

 

The reason why it gets a reaction from some of us, me included, is the unconventional act of trading down from #2 when you need a QB brings us into actually VERY conventional Washington draft waters.   That is, we are used to shopping in that 2nd tier and hoping to get lucky.  It would bring us back to the ride we've been on but hope this time we get lucky

 

This isn't a new story and a new theory for many us here.  It's something we've discussed for many years which is wow can we for once have the good fortune of picking top 3 for a change and do it in a draft that's touted for QBs for a change?  Now we are actually at that point.  It's here.  So for a number of us (and judging by fan polls, most fans, too) we don't want to go old school Washington and shop again in that 2nd tier of QBs.  

 

If anything for some of us it feels if anything a bit absurd.  We finally have that rare opportunity in our lap but lets punt on it and go old school Washington with the hope of a better result?  it's not as if we haven't had some strong rosters before without the QB, so even the idea of celebrating that Falcons style lets build ourselves a roster, feels yawn. 

 

I've said many times if for some odd reason, Peters loves a perceived 2nd tier QB better than a first tier, I'll ride it but he better be right.  I think the odds are very low by the way of that circumstancr judging by insiders but the process is young so maybe that changes.  So if he trades down because lets say he thinks Nix is better than Maye or Daniels, then he better nail it.  If you are going wild and funky you better be right.   But I think the odds are close to zero they pass over the #2 pick albiet we will have the narratives that they might right until draft day because it behooves them to have other teams guessing.

 

Edited March 7 by Skinsinparadise

[The Consigliere]

3 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

If you're not sold on any of the Big 3 then you'll never be happy with any QB prospect. They're as good as you're realistically gonna get.

It really depends on the QB class you're drafting from. When you take QBs in perceived strong classes, you have a very good chance of getting at least a solid starter.

 

The numbers skew downwards because of expansion teams and teams reaching for mediocrity(your Kenny Picketts, EJ Maneuls etc.).

 

Perceived blue chippers in strong classes hit pretty frequently.

Yep, it's all of that, but the #'s definitely get fattened up by bunk classes like 2013, 2014, 2022, 2025 next year etc, where teams have to figure out when to pull the trigger on a QB in a crappy class, and whether they're willing to rationalize away issues with a prospect when they have a forced need pick at the position. Guys like Danny Nickels, Haskins, Pickett etc or earlier EJ Manuel, and Christian Ponder etc? These are rationalizations, easy for me to say, but those of us who have been watching drafts for decades can tell the difference between a Watson or Mahomes or hell Fields in a class, and a Ponder or EJ Manuel or Pickett. Ponder/Manuel and Pickett are forced need, misses and obvious ones, a miss like Fields is more: Fields failed as a prospect, maybe (he's not a bust yet, but he's not good either, he's somewhere between average and bust lol-pretty wide expanse there).