2024 NFL Draft Position/Tracker - Final Pick #2

[Warhead36]

Just now, Est.1974 said:

They don't know that at all. 

Mayo pretty much all but said theyre going QB at 3. You dont pass up on a blue chipper because you have Mac Jones and Bailey Zappe.

[mhd24]

3 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Mayo pretty much all but said theyre going QB at 3. You dont pass up on a blue chipper because you have Mac Jones and Bailey Zappe.

 

Yup.  Mayo was pretty clear in his interview after he got hired.  QBs are going 1-3 in the draft.  It's a lock on that matter.

[Est.1974]

3 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Mayo pretty much all but said theyre going QB at 3. You dont pass up on a blue chipper because you have Mac Jones and Bailey Zappe.

The teams picking 1,2,3 might be going QB, but they don’t necessarily have to remain in those slots to go QB. And they may not rank/value certain QBs the same as you do.

[Warhead36]

Just now, mhd24 said:

 

Yup.  Mayo was pretty clear in his interview after he got hired.  QBs are going 1-3 in the draft.  It's a lock on that matter.

My hope is they love Daniels and we convince them to swap picks and give us extra in return and then take Maye.

Just now, Est.1974 said:

The teams picking 1,2,3 might be going QB, but they don’t necessarily have to remain in those slots to go QB. And they may not rank/value certain QBs the same as you do.

If you love a QB thats at your spot, you dont F around. You take him.

 

[Est.1974]

Just now, Warhead36 said:

My hope is they love Daniels and we convince them to swap picks and give us extra in return and then take Maye.

😂that’s a good one after you’ve contested my question of AZ going up from 4 

2 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

 

If you love a QB thats at your spot, you dont F around. You take him.

 

But we would trade down with NE, right ?

[Skinsinparadise]

22 minutes ago, Est.1974 said:

Clearly the major talking point is what we do at #2 and how we balance that with our void at QB.

 

The Lions are a good case to look at -

 

4 first round picks in the last 2 years. 
18 top ‘101’ picks in 4 years. 

 

Yep sucking for multple years if that happens isn't the end of the world.  That often is the path to prosperity in the NFL.

 

The Browns like the Lions often used to be the butt of jokes in the NFL, many years picking high.  Now their roster is stacked.

 

We can win quickly next year like the Texans did if we get lucky at QB from the jump.  But if we don't, and have to reset again and pick high again IMO its fine.

 

To paraphrase Harris' quote, we don't want the short cut to mediocrity.  We don't want back on that treadmill. 

 

I am not worried though that we will.  Because Harris clearly doesn't want that.  I love that he's not looking for that short cut to be so so. 

Edited January 22 by Skinsinparadise

[Warhead36]

4 minutes ago, Est.1974 said:

😂that’s a good one after you’ve contested my question of AZ going up from 4 

But we would trade down with NE, right ?

I admit its a pipe dream and Id only do it if I loved a guy and I knew the Pats loved a different guy. OR I loved two guys equally. 
 

I dont think its the same as Arizona giving up an extra first to get a WR when they know for sure the first three picks will be QBs. I would make that trade if I loved two QBs equally, I just dont think Zona would.

 

Teams behave differently and are willing to give up more to get a QB. 

[Warhead36]

6 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Yep sucking for multple years if that happens isn't the end of the world.  That often is the path to prosperity in the NFL.

 

The Browns like the Lions often used to be the butt of jokes in the NFL, many years picking high.  Now their roster is stacked.

 

We can win quickly next year like the Texans did if we get lucky at QB from the jump.  But if we don't, and have to reset again and pick high again IMO its fine.

 

To paraphrase Harris' quote, we don't want the short cut to mediocrity.  We don't want back on that treadmill. 

 

I am not worried though that we will.  Because Harris clearly doesn't want that.  I love that he's not looking for that short cut to be so so. 

Yep short term mediocrity is against Harris’s MO. Thats why he took on the process for the 76ers. 

[Skinsinparadise]

31 minutes ago, Est.1974 said:

Washington #2

Arizona #4, #27, #66

 

Who’s doing that if they want to jump to get MHJ, assuming Williams goes #1 

 

Slam dunk no for me.  Easy no. Unless they loved a QB at 4.   But I'd trust whatever they think so in real time nothing they do will be criticized from me.  Or at least I don't plan to.    Also, I've read now Arizona is running with Murray.  I thought they might go elsewhere at QB if they were picking high but the idea of them trading up I think is far fetched. 

 

I know you are Caleb or bust.  I am OK with the thought of getting Caleb.  If you think Caleb is the be all and end all and if you think little of Maye than try to move heaven and earth to get Caleb.

 

But I am with the conventional thinking about Maye and Daniels that they are both really good.    But even with that thought, I am not arrogant about it.  Whatever they think as to the Qbs I am good with it.  No one has cracked the QB code in the draft -- so I am not pretending I am the first one to crack it and my opinion is king on these QBs.   I'd be wasting my time here if so and I'd be making many millions.

 

However, typically the conventional opinion on these QBs (as to leaks of what scouts-personnel guys think of them, not mock drafters) come to life on draft day.  So the odds are greater than this FO mirrors what the scouts-personnel guys have said about these QBS versus thinking its BS and they see the QBs totally differently.  But anything is possible.

 

For me, I'd stay at 2.  But I'd trust whatever they think over my opinion.  If am just spitballing guessing this.  I'd guess 80% chance they stick at #2 and take a QB.  10% chance they trade up.  10% chance they trade down but still take a QB.

 

I can take them trading up or staying at their pick where I'll ride with the result wherever it goes because I like the process.  But if they trade down, since i'd hate the process, they better be right.  I'd trust it in real time.  But I'd be the first to say Peters needs to be fired (as much as I like him now) if it blows up on him. 

 

By blowing up meaning, the QB they pass over becomes a stud and the one they take is "meh".  I know you didn't like that comment from me on another post.  But I think its pretty reasonable so I don't see why anyone would have a beef with it.  It's driven by the simple thought that trading out of a top 2 pick is VERY unusual for a team that needs a QB.  And look I'll even take that ride on the off chance Peters goes there.  But I am not going to forgive an unusual move if it blows up.  And for a team desperate for a franchise QB more than any team in the NFL for eons -- I can't forgive having a QB right at their pick who is highly regarded and they pass over that dude and they end up dead wrong on it.  I am good with them doing it but they better be right.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 22 by Skinsinparadise

[Koolblue13]

I think we're competitive next year, regardless of how they handle QB.

 

Also, regardless of how they handle QB, we aren't in the SB next year

 

I wonder if Peters makes a decision based on the hubris of Purdy. 

 

I also wonder if there is any QBs in the next draft that they like better than Maye/Daniels.

 

There are so many factors at play. We don't need to be in RonMart panic mode anymore.

 

And we've been told this isn't an over night team build.

 

The Lions had a plan when they hired Campbell as HC. First year they draft OL,DT,DT and then took shots at late round skill positions (something Peters excels at), next year Edge and WR in the first. They actually took 3 edge that draft and it was a heavy defensive draft and they had some success that season, third year they took home run swings at the positions they wanted to highlight and now might go to the SB, Sure they had Goff, but he's no stud QB and they drafted a guy to develop behind him.

 

That is a solid way to construct a team.

[Warhead36]

Maye and Johnson would be a match made in heaven. Wed run the East, especially with GMAP building up the team around em.

[Koolblue13]

11 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Slam dunk no for me.  Easy no. Unless they loved a QB at 4.   But I'd trust whatever they think so in real time nothing they do will be criticized from me.  Or at least I don't plan to.    Also, I've read now Arizona is running with Murray.  I thought they might go elsewhere at QB if they were picking high but the idea of them trading up I think is far fetched. 

 

I know you are Caleb or bust.  I am OK with the thought of getting Caleb.  If you think Caleb is the be all and end all and if you think little of Maye than try to move heaven and earth to get Caleb.

 

But I am with the conventional thinking about Maye and Daniels that they are both really good.    But even with that thought, I am not arrogant about it.  Whatever they think as to the Qbs I am good with it.  No one has cracked the QB code in the draft -- so I am not pretending I am the first one to crack it and my opinion is king on these QBs.   I'd be wasting my time here if so and I'd be making many millions.

 

However, typically the conventional opinion on these QBs (as to leaks of what scouts-personnel guys think of them, not mock drafters) come to life on draft day.  So the odds are greater than this FO mirrors what the scouts-personnel guys have said about these QBS versus thinking its BS and they see the QBs totally differently.  But anything is possible.

 

For me, I'd stay at 2.  But I'd trust whatever they think over my opinion.  If am just spitballing guessing this.  I'd guess 80% chance they stick at #2 and take a QB.  10% chance they trade up.  10% chance they trade down but still take a QB.

 

I can take them trading up or staying at their pick where I'll ride with the result wherever it goes because I like the process.  But if they trade down, since i'd hate the process, they better be right.  I'd trust it in real time.  But I'd be the first to say Peters needs to be fired (as much as I like him now) if it blows up on him. 

 

By blowing up meaning, the QB they pass over becomes a stud and the one they take is "meh".  I know you didn't like that comment from me on another post.  But I think its pretty reasonable so I don't see why anyone would have a beef with it.  It's driven by the simple thought that trading out of a top 2 pick is VERY unusual for a team that needs a QB.  And look I'll even take that ride on the off chance Peters goes there.  But I am not going to forgive an unusual move if it blows up.  And for a team desperate for a franchise QB more than any team in the NFL for eons -- I can't forgive having a QB right at their pick who is highly regarded and they pass over that dude and they end up dead wrong on it.  I am good with them doing it but they better be right.

 

 

 

 

I'm 99% sure it's Johnson and Maye.

[JamesMadisonSkins]

18 hours ago, FlyBigBeard said:

You trade Allen and keep Payne. Payne is just as good if not better and he is younger. I definitely see them shopping Allen. And I like the move get good value for a aging pro vet while he still has value. And free up cap space for some more big time free agents. 

 

Allen is 28. 

 

We have Payne, Mathis, Ridgeway already on the roster. 

 

Trading Allen for a 2nd+ does not leave you bare at the position. 

 

Could replace Allen with a veteran rotational piece. Could also replace him with a 3rd-5th round pick. 

 

Allen is the most obvious trade candidate. Not sure other than Terry who else makes sense at this point. There's really nobody on the roster that you can point to that is an asset that teams would necessarily want to trade for that makes sense to move other than Terry and Allen, and I think Terry stays given we'll be going after a rookie QB at #2.

 

---------

Of course there's a scenario where this front office decides to trade #2 and go long-haul rebuild. Load up on draft picks this year and next year and ride with Howell + maybe a mid-round pick with eyes on QB later down the road. And if that's the approach they choose to take, then I think it makes a lot more sense to trade Terry.

[Warhead36]

Cant deal Terry. Need a reliable vet for the rook to throw to. Plus he deserves to explode with a bona fide coach and QB.

[JamesMadisonSkins]

1 hour ago, Est.1974 said:

Clearly the major talking point is what we do at #2 and how we balance that with our void at QB.

 

The Lions are a good case to look at -

 

4 first round picks in the last 2 years. 
18 top ‘101’ picks in 4 years. 

 

We have 5 this year, 6 if you go out to 103. So that's a good start. But the only way you can really get to 18 picks in the Top 100 or whatever is by trading down in R1 and accumulating picks aggressively. That's what Detroit has been able to do the last two years.

 

The "win win" that we are in now is that we either get who we think is our franchise QB to build around, OR we turn the #2 pick into a pipeline of picks for this year and well into the future.

 

We've seen it happen time and time again (and Lions being the most recent example) but you could conceivably.

 

Trade #2 to the Patriots for #34 and a 2025 2nd

Trade #3 to Atlanta for #8, #43, a 2025 1st and 2025 3rd

 

In 2024 you'd have:

#8, #34, #36, #40, #43, #67, #95, #103 (8 Top 103 picks)

 

In 2025 you'd have:

1st

1st (ATL)

2nd

2nd (NE)

3rd

3rd (ATL)

 

That's another 6 Top 100 picks. You'd have basically replicated in 2 years what the Lions have done over 4 years, picking 14 times in the Top 103 (and 7x in R1-2). Of course, you could trade one of those 1sts next year down for 2026 capital.

 

Will we trade down 2x? Hard to say. But Peters has a history of trading from #2. Is that the best option considering we'd have no QB ... TBD. Lions struck gold with the Goff reclamation project, otherwise we may not be talking about their success in the draft as much given their QB situation would be muddled.

Edited January 22 by JamesMadisonSkins

[JamesMadisonSkins]

59 minutes ago, Est.1974 said:

Washington #2

Arizona #4, #27, #66

 

Who’s doing that if they want to jump to get MHJ, assuming Williams goes #1 

 

That's a pretty easy yes under two assumptions, one we can prove the other we can't. 

1. Arizona is taking MHJ at #2 (we presume this is a yes as they'd tell us who they're taking before we agree to said trade)

2. The FO likes Daniels and Maye close enough to risk having to pick whoever the Patriots don't take. 

 

But if you're telling me we could still get "our QB" while adding a late 1st and a 3rd I'm all of that. I have also stated that if this FO likes Maye and Daniels equally, OR the Patriots call them up and say "we want to come up for X" and X is not your preferred QB, then you absolutely make that trade and take your guy at #3. 

There's a legitimate chance that the future decision makers view Daniels, Maye and even Williams on somewhat equal footing. There is a world where they say, you know what, we can win with all 3 of these guys. And they may rank them 1, 2a, 2b but if they feel like there's pro-bowl upside with all 3, then I would absolutely be open to moving back with NE or ARZ in those scenarios, taking the guy that's there for us, and loading up on draft capital. This is one of the drafts where I may actually believe that the 2-3 Top QB options are all #1 overall caliber in most other drafts --- so it's exciting to be in position to maximize on that. 

[Est.1974]

33 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I know you are Caleb or bust.  I am OK with the thought of getting Caleb.  If you think Caleb is the be all and end all and if you think little of Maye than try to move heaven and earth to get Caleb.

From a personal perspective I would definitely be all in for Williams. However, the reality is I’m fine with whatever move they make. Irrespective of the scars of the past, we have to buy into Harris and Peters, and the direction they go. The have already demonstrated enough to earn the fans trust IMO.
 

So in the end I’ll be all in for whatever they do. Like any decision they make, time and results down the line will be the judge.

5 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

 

That's a pretty easy yes under two assumptions, one we can prove the other we can't. 

1. Arizona is taking MHJ at #2 (we presume this is a yes as they'd tell us who they're taking before we agree to said trade)

2. The FO likes Daniels and Maye close enough to risk having to pick whoever the Patriots don't take. 

 

But if you're telling me we could still get "our QB" while adding a late 1st and a 3rd I'm all of that. I have also stated that if this FO likes Maye and Daniels equally, OR the Patriots call them up and say "we want to come up for X" and X is not your preferred QB, then you absolutely make that trade and take your guy at #3. 

I knew I could rely on you 👌😂

[method man]

49 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Cant deal Terry. Need a reliable vet for the rook to throw to. Plus he deserves to explode with a bona fide coach and QB.

Yep. Regardless of QB, I am excited to see how a mind like Ben Johnson can utilize him next season.

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

 

That's a pretty easy yes under two assumptions, one we can prove the other we can't. 

1. Arizona is taking MHJ at #2 (we presume this is a yes as they'd tell us who they're taking before we agree to said trade)

2. The FO likes Daniels and Maye close enough to risk having to pick whoever the Patriots don't take. 

 

But if you're telling me we could still get "our QB" while adding a late 1st and a 3rd I'm all of that. I have also stated that if this FO likes Maye and Daniels equally, OR the Patriots call them up and say "we want to come up for X" and X is not your preferred QB, then you absolutely make that trade and take your guy at #3. 

There's a legitimate chance that the future decision makers view Daniels, Maye and even Williams on somewhat equal footing. There is a world where they say, you know what, we can win with all 3 of these guys. And they may rank them 1, 2a, 2b but if they feel like there's pro-bowl upside with all 3, then I would absolutely be open to moving back with NE or ARZ in those scenarios, taking the guy that's there for us, and loading up on draft capital. This is one of the drafts where I may actually believe that the 2-3 Top QB options are all #1 overall caliber in most other drafts --- so it's exciting to be in position to maximize on that. 

 

I am presuming if Arizona is trading up, its for a QB.  Yeah if they telegraph its for MHJ its cool, but it would be a weird move.  Odds are good Qbs are going in the first three picks.  You typically don't trade the moon for a WR.  And this is a good draft for Wrs.

 

 

1 hour ago, Koolblue13 said:

I'm 99% sure it's Johnson and Maye.

 

Probably so.  I am not ruling out Daniels. 

Edited January 22 by Skinsinparadise

[kingdaddy]

2 hours ago, Est.1974 said:

Washington #2

Arizona #4, #27, #66

 

Who’s doing that if they want to jump to get MHJ, assuming Williams goes #1 

IF, there are multiple QB's that I'm comfortable with I'm doing this trade (assuming this the best offer we get for #2). Having the #4 and #27 plus the two 2nds and now 3 thirds is a slam dunk assuming we know we're gonna get Daniels, Maye or one of the others possibly later in round 1. Easy choice if we see multiple QB's that we can live with. 

[mhd24]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I am presuming if Arizona is trading up, its for a QB.  Yeah if they telegraph its for MHJ its cool, but it would be a weird move.  Odds are good Qbs are going in the first three picks.  You typically don't trade the moon for a WR.  And this is a good draft for Wrs.

 

Probably so.  I am not ruling out Daniels. 

 

Arizona has a FO that values picks.  That is why they did the trade down last year.  They aren't trading up for MHJ when they can get a comparable WR talent in Nabers at 4 if for some reason MHJ isn't there.  Nabers would easily be a WR1 in any other draft.  It kind of sucks he'll probably fall to NYG at 6 unless the Chargers decide to take him over Bowers.

[Warhead36]

33 minutes ago, mhd24 said:

 

Arizona has a FO that values picks.  That is why they did the trade down last year.  They aren't trading up for MHJ when they can get a comparable WR talent in Nabers at 4 if for some reason MHJ isn't there.  Nabers would easily be a WR1 in any other draft.  It kind of sucks he'll probably fall to NYG at 6 unless the Chargers decide to take him over Bowers.

Bowers to the Chargers just seems like a perfect fit. They have nothing at TE and need more weapons for Herbert.

 

I did see a mock that had him falling to 15. Would you package both 2nds to move up to 15 to get Bowers? Imagine a Maye(or Daniels) and Bowers combo for the next decade. Could be our version of Mahomes and Kelce.

[The Consigliere]

4 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

If we had our franchise QB like Detriot did, I'd be OK with trading back in the future though feel mixed about it.  I always love it in real time but the results mostly sucked when we've done it in the past.  But maybe a regime that knows what they are doing.

 

Cerrato with the trades back netting Thomas, Kelly, Davis.  Trading down with Dallas, they got Dexter Lawrence we got Trent Murphy and nothing much else.  The trade down with the Texans so they can get Watt and we can get both Kerrigan and Jenkins.  The trade down with Seattle so they can get Tyler Lockett and we get Crowder and not much else.

 

The last trade down for a spell looked good but it might not be aging well.  Passing over Olave and Hamilton who look like studs for Dotson, Robinson, Howell.  But we got time to see how that pans out.

 

There might not be a team in the NFL who has had less star power-elite players than this team over decades now.  It might be part of the reason that no team has had less All Pros than any other or the only who hasn't won more than 10 games in 30 plus years or the only one not making it to the championship game in 30 plus years.

 

SF has elite players throughout the roster and were willing to trade for some of them.  Granted some of them were taking later in the draft.  Game changing-elite players move the needle clearly.

I view those bad examples as randomness more than anything (and admittedly, I think trading down in the top half of round 1 is fundamentally different than other rounds because round 1 is round 1), just bad luck. And with a guy like Dotson, he was a hit in '22, and a miss in '23. We'll see what he is in the future, he isn't and will never be Olave, wasn't in the draft year either, and I hated the Robinson pick, but he's been an efficient, cost effective solution to the RB problem with Gibson getting punted until probably the end of '25. Landing a solid #2 WR, a starting RB for four years and a solid backup QB with potentially starting potential is a good enough result, but it's not landing an All Pro WR. Otoh, for a team that sucks, getting 3 solid to good players, rather than 1 great one, is important, links in the chain and all. 

 

I suspect Adam will make trade downs, possibly ups this draft, we have so much draft capital, he can play the class as it lays, knowing this build will take 2 years just to get us to competent, maybe, so he can trade for '25 assets, more bullets in '24, or more elite players rather than speculative ones. We'll see.

 

What we aren't doing is trading down in round 1 for a WR, OT, Bowers etc. That isn't happening. I also admittedly hate it when people get too obsessed with particular players in later rounds since it pretty much never happens this way. I used to love talking about it, but honestly its nearly impossible to remember it happening outside of round 1. It happens like once a decade for me: Ervins in 1991 I think, Reggie brooks in '93, Fred Smoot in '01, its just incredibly rare. In round 1 its easier, like Orakpo, but after round 1 the boards of teams are so wildly different and the means to execute the selections and why so diverse that its rare you get exactly what you want. Howell in round 5 two years ago was the most recent rare example. I have always wished instead of talking up prospects, people just talked up positional tiers and the guys plural within it that they're good with, like the famed WR classes of '20 and '21. Show me your OT tiers for rounds 1, 2 and 3, and how'd you rank them? That sorta thing.

 

Again, I know its not my place to tell people what to do, and I sound like a ---- saying this, but I think having a positional tier with your faves within it, is always more useful than just, "a guy you like you hope we take inbetween rounds 3-4". The chances of specific guys on day 2 and especially day 3 are so bloody low its pointless to me, but how you rank say, the day 2 and day 3 TE options? I'd love to hear that (or LB's, or interior lineman etc). 

[The Consigliere]

4 hours ago, kingdaddy said:

So much of it seems to be about coaching. Dan Campbell has raised the bar there and his players have responded. Also, lets see how Goff does on the road in SF....wouldn't it be something if the 1st game match-up of the NFL season also turned out to be the last game? Seems like forever ago when Detroit won in KC on that Thursday night in September. 

I don't really see it that way. I think he's fine, probably a solid to good second tier guy, but there's no arguing the talent base on offense. 

#1 they have a legit top 10-12 QB, who when unpressured plays like a top 5 guy.

#2 they have an elite OL

#3 They're playmakers are ridiculous: As in:

They hit on one of the two or three best WR's of the '20 or '21 class in Amon, and he's basically All Pro level. They used a top selection in '22 on a top 2-3 WR from that class in Jameson Williams who hasn't even popped yet. They have the #2 RB from the '19 class, and the #2 RB from the much better '23 class. They have the best TE in the league under age 25 and probably the best value TE selection since George Kittle 7 years ago.

 

How do you stop an offense like that? How? On top of that, they also play in a dome so its weather controlled for all home games, plus the Minnesota road games and whatever other domed games they have scheduled.

 

Dan's been a solid to good coach, but when you have a build like that, you have to work to screw it up. The problem they have is that they've mostly missed w/their high end defense draft picks, so the D is still a mess. 

 

But the team is set up. Its gonna be interesting watching how the NFC plays out in the years ahead. Green Bay's on the up, same with Detroit, Chicago could be, Minnesota is probably going to be caught out despite having a lot of weapons on offense to play with, the NFC South is HILARIOUS, the NFC East is a mess up top and bottom, the NFC West is San Fran's to control, but if LA could make the playoffs w/that roster this year, what can they do now that they own their picks for the first time in a gazillion years? Really really interesting. Detroit should be good for a long time. But great? I don't think the offense is good enough. 

 

For those wondering, after a dry start to the winter (no december snow at all), we've been hit by snow for 3 and a half straight weeks, the bay area corresponding with rain, but the weather prediction for the title game is morning fog opening up to sun and a typical 65-70 degree South Bay day. 

23 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

Id still like to keep Alle but if say the Packers offered a 2nd and 4th for him itd be hard to say no. 

I don't see a reason to keep him. He's 29, and we won't be good until at least his age 31 season (and that's if we're lucky). The only reason to keep him is if the expected comp sucks and we really want him for the locker room. If we can't get a day 2 pick in the 50-70 zone, I'd say keep him, but otherwise I'd 1000% trade him.

18 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

Its crazy to me how so many of you guys wanna pass up on drafting a franchise QB. Did you learn nothing from 2020?

I think it's a mix of "no" and in some cases just not believing in the upside of the Qb's for other people. 

 

Makes no sense to me. Forget my opinion of the QB's, general consensus is these 2 are the best since '21 other than Lawrence. Seems like the must no brainers of no brainers. Im trying not to engage since I'm 99.5% sure we go QB in April at 2. But it's hard not too. Silly argument to me (in terms of likelihood). 

[The Consigliere]

18 hours ago, seantaylor=god said:

Some people are super risk adverse. But drafting a first round QB (not even trading up) is not even much of a risk. If he fails, try again. You have to find a QB. It’s the most cost effective and best chance to do it. Especially now, the cost of FA QBs is insane. I’m still so thankful we have the number two pick we are so ****ing lucky.

I've mentioned this repeatedly and heard no counterarguments to it, let alone valid ones.

 

When you miss, like Jacksonville with Bortles and Gabbert, Chicago with Trubisky and maybe Fields, Carolina with Bryce Young, Houston sorta with Watson, Jets with the old USC guy, Darnold, Zach, Cardinals with Rosen and maybe Kyler, Patriots with Mac Jones. 

 

Its pretty simple, especially for teams with dire rosters like ours. If you suck horribly and miss you on a QB, you typically try again, usually within 1 to 2 years of the selection, at most, 3. Big deal, were sitting on 30 years. I can do another year or 2. 

 

We have to get QB right, everything else is irrelevant if we have no QB. It was true in 2021, 2020, 2018 and 2017 too. Baffling to me that this isn't understood. 

4 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

We could trade back twice, stay in the top ten and still have a shot at Verse, Nabers or Bowers who are all elite playmakers.

So another words, do exactly what Atlanta did the last 3 drafts which landed them the 25th best record in the league after doing it 3 years in a row (this would be our first year of trying their plan), and no closer to solving their core problem since Matt Ryan aged out: QB. 

Edited January 22 by The Consigliere