Macc should just take Barkley and let the QB thing figure itself out. Barkley: 99% chance of big impact for next 6-8 years on an offense desperate for playmakers. QB: 0%-5% chance of big impact picking 3rd in the draft. If you don't believe me, just ask Teddy or Josh. Macc jumped ahead of Cleveland at #4 not for a 3rd rate QB, but for Barkley. This ploy alone may force Cleveland into taking Barkley with #1 (and then their QB at #4), which will leave Macc with a top 2 pick of a QB, BRILLIANT!!!
I do not believe we have to give up everything for an opportunity at a FQB. I think it's silly. I hate NE, but look how the dynasty started. The team was in place, Tom was picked in the 6th round (not saying that him working out was lucky, but he was drafted by a team that was able to develope him), and was moving toward the future with a QB that didn't have much left in the tank before Mo ended his career. Having a FQB is more about having a team in place ( coaches/staff more so than roster, but roster must be somewhat in place and not in rebuild mode), than taking chances in the draft. My original post showed how many QB's going to awful teams? How many of those guys were ops? How many were the foundation to a rebuilding franchise and succeeded? We didn't trade up for a chance at drafting Allen or Mayfield at 3. Either the JETS know Barkley will be taken 1or 2, and Darnold or Rosen will slide to us at 3. Or our consolation prize will be Barkley, and another year of Jags at QB while the team gets itself in better position to find its QB some other time. QB play is important, but what would we have done in 09-10 with McCowns play at QB last season? Mac may be taking this rebuild a little slower than all the QB pundits would agree. I'm all for helping the team for the future at 3. Taking Allen or Mayfield at 3, won't help. It will be suicide for Mac's job if he does. Rosen would be my choice if he wasn't such a band aid, while Darnold may be more turnover prone in the NFL than college. I would rather have Rudolph than Mayfield or Allen, and he could have been had a lot later than #3 overall. I won't be shocked or upset at all if Barkley is a JET. He would help the QB's we have, or any QB we may get later on. It's not the end of the world if we don't go QB at 3. This class is hyped, but I'm not buying. It doesn't look like the Eli, Rivers, Rothlisberger class. It looks like one of the many flop classes, but with the most hype any class has had since 1983. We do not have to take QB at 3, nor should we if our man isn't there.
This is absurd. So because you produce 17 years of data that doesn't shine favorably on the idea of obtaining a FQB, Mac should give up trying?! This is lame. If you like a certain kid and you think he can lead the team you MUST take that shot.
Most drafted QB's will fail. The league has 10 to 15 really good QB's at any one time. That's NFL QB's not college QB's. There are however several drafts that produced multiple talented QB's. In those drafts it was clearly not the one that went first or was the consensus 1st round pick that was the best of the group. 2005: Aaron Rodgers, Alex Smith, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Matt Cassel, Jason Campbell, Kyle Orton, Derek Anderson. 2 Franchise QB's the best one was not taken 1st. 1957:Len Dawson, Sonny Jurgensen, Jack Kemp, John Brodie, Milt Plum Dawson busted out of the NFL but was very successful in the AFL and won a SB. Brodie and Jurgensen were both terrific. 1971: Joe Theismann, Archie Manning, Jim Plunkett, Ken Anderson, Lynn Dickey Jim Plunkett completely busted out on a bad NE team only to end up winning 2 SB late in his career for the Raiders. He was the first one taken 2004: Manning, Rivers, Rolithsberger and Schaub. 1983: John Elway, Jim Kelly, Dan Marino, Ken O'Brien Todd Blackledge, went ahead of Kelly, O'Brien and Marino Tony Eason went ahead of O'Brien and Marino. The real question is, is this draft an all time great QB draft? If it's going to produce multiple long term starters it will be. If it is we have to take one and it better be the right one or two of the group.
If you are dismissing the idea of drafting a QB in round one, what round is it statistically sound to draft a QB in? Or are you suggesting the Jets should simply never draft a QB because statistically they are a long shot to ever succeed? Maybe we just bring back the wildcat and not play with a QB at all?
Since the goal is to win the Super Bowl, in the same period of time of this analysis how many Super Bowls were won by QB’s drafted in the first round?
Of course every goal is to win it all. But it is not just with a franchise QB. But with a top RB, W.R. and defense wins the game.
It's true that you need a whole team to win a SB, but having a FQB makes it easier and more consistent to get that chance. OTOH, if you wait until you have all (or most) of these other pieces before you look for a FQB, there's no guarantee that you find him when you want him. Moral of the story: If you think your FQB is there. take him and then build around him. Especially on today's NFL that favors passing/offense over defense, you can quickly build a winning team by getting your FQB in place.
Some of the QBs you rate after year 1, Wentz and Goff, others over the course of their careers. Cam is a FQB no matter his athleticism. Goff is a FQB. Need consistency
10 of the last 20 SB were won by a 1st round pick. Payton Manning, Joe Flacco, Eli Manning, Rodgers, Rothlisberger, Elway all went in the first. Foles, Brady, Brees, Dilfer, Johnson, Wilson and Warner didn't. Brady won 5, Payton Manning 2, Eli 2, Rothlisberger 2. 20 years, 6 SB winning QB's went in the first round, 7 didn't go in the first round.
That's what makes finding a FQB so hard. But, the odds are best for QBs taken in the 1st round, by a substantial margin. After than it progressively falls off. Of course it's not just the QB that affects the success rate, it's who the QB winds up playing for, and the coaching and talent around him. Tom Brady on another team might never have even taken a snap for someone else (Bowles?). As often as it happens that a mismatch occurs between the QB taken and the system they wind up in, it's strange that supposedly knowledgeable people get this wrong - maybe it's just hopeless optimism (We can fix ANYONE!), or wishful thinking. The Jets are in even more uncertain situation because they have a new OC, and it's not clear what system they'll employ, and will Bowles buy into the idea of fitting the system around they guy they get, or force him to play his preferred system (whatever that is). The answer to this question hopefully will drive the QB selection.
So 46% of winning QB’s were first round picks and 54% were from the other 6 rounds; that certainly reflects heavily in the favor of 1st round QB’s being more successful than any other round picks. I’m not sure anyone could reasonably interpret that as cause to pass on a first round QB and take a chance on a 2nd, 3rd or 6th rounder.
Since when? Every SB won has been 1 on 11 with the QB throwing, blocking, running, catching and then playing defense. Look it up.
How about the info that Scouting Reports has 4 QBs with over 90 ratings for the first time probably ever. The quality of prospects coming out of college matters. Which year was there potential to have 6 first round QBs, but more importantly, 4 potentially taken in the first 5 picks? Completely different draft - more like 1983 draft year with Elway, Marino, Jim Kelley, Ken O'Brien, Blackledge, Eason. How did that draft work out? Elway - HOF Marino - HOF Jim Kelley - HOF O'Brien - Pro Bowl Eason - in league for many years Blackledge - bust The most deceiving part of your argument is all of the draft classes you listed didn't have this type of depth at the top of the draft.
The question about the odds are an interesting one. Presumably the odds of a 1st round any position being a great/good/mediocre/bust goes down in every round. I would think that while the odds are better in the first round the real way to find a franchise QB is to continually use the draft to go after QB's regardless of the round based on where they fall on your draft board. Presumably there is a better chance to find a first round franchise QB because that's where the obvious talent is. We know for sure that HOF quality players exist all over the draft. If there isn't a franchise quality QB available in the first round you're not getting one. I know that sounds obvious but apparently it's not.
maybe he will go qb at #3, and follow the ron wolf theory by drafting another qb from round 5-7. take a developmental guy like falk, lauletta, white, ferguson, etc. if they are on the board in the later round. the skins took rg3 in round 1, but mike shanny still took cousins in round 4.
While I agree with your first paragraph, I'm confused about your last statement that seems to contradict what you said. You noted that the odds are highest in the first round, but suggested that maybe the surest way is to identify and draft QBs who you believe can be FQBs regardless of the round, which I tend to agree with. But your last statement negates that strategy. I would rephrase it to read. "If there isn't a franchise quality QB available in the first round you're probably not getting one."
Depends on who might be available. All things being equal I would agree with this strategy, but they need a lot of help in the pass rush and OL too, so I wouldn't simply take a QB just to take a QB unless he had a good chance of becoming a starter eventually. And it also depends on how sure they are that Bridgewater can play. If they have doubt about that, maybe they draft a 2nd QB and cut Petty and Hack.
to be honest, i am not sure signing bridgewater was better than it would be to sign manziel instead. broadway joe had off the field issues also, but he did ok during the games. manziel would have had an extra two years to change his outlook and behavior.
