We really need to take our time and wait for that perfect moment to take a QB (#1 of course.) That opportunity comes along all the time. #2? NFG. Don't waste the pick. Take an OL and pray you get a shot at a FQB before he has grandkids. Or you can take a generational WR and hope he can throw the ball to himself.
QB's are taken high in the 1st round and after the #1 pick because bad teams draft high in the 1st round and unlike the lucky bad teams with the #1 pick there is no clear consensus to guide them.
Again. I've done this. Pick #1 Pick #2 - #12 Pick #13 - #24 Pick #25 - #36 Where do you think the value comes from in those ranges? #1 #25 - #36 #2 - #12 #13 - #24 Hell, I did this a month and a half ago. https://forums.theganggreen.com/thr...rade-sam-or-2-pick.95011/page-19#post-4035860 Note the post I linked comes with examples. Not of selected people to prove a point. Of *every* QB ever drafted in the NFL since the merger. You can't get more detailed than that. The #2 pick is an enormous QB trap this year. It's not even the usual trap of everybody having a hard on for QB's because the Jags are getting a real one in Lawrence. It's that one PLUS the fact that none of the other people being considered for #2 have as many as 2 full successful seasons to evaluate. I'd say the #2 pick QB trap this year is probably the biggest such trap in NFL history since the merger.
SF looks like they are done with Jimmy and I think Jimmy for Sam straight up is fair talent wise. Then the swap of picks to offset the salary we are taking on
Well good teams don't draft #2 - #15 that's for sure. And *most* teams that consistently draft lower than 15 have a good QB already. The 2004 Packers were 10-6 and then drafted Rodgers at #24. The 2016 Chiefs were 12-4 when they drafted Maholmes. The 2016 Texans were 9-7 when they drafted Watson in 2017. So I guess history says you take a QB when you suck and have the #1 pick or you take them when your are in the top half of the league and you're drafting as with that position?
You don't take a QB on the #1 unless there's a QB there worthy of the #1. That's why mostly bad teams have drafted 21 QB's on the #1 and found 8 stars and an additional 8 starters. You really shouldn't take a QB on the #2 in almost any circumstances but particularly after somebody else has already taken the guy everybody views as the consensus #1. This is just asking for a huge value loss. Also, just pointing out that if you know what you are doing, if you are a good team, if you understand QB value, you don't need to pick high to get a good QB. If you don't know what you are doing, if you are a bad team, if you do not understand QB value, you will very rarely find a QB anywhere but on the #1 pick, however if you take pot shots in the 25-36 range you will sometimes get lucky and find a Derek Carr or Andy Dalton to bail you out for a few years. If I was Joe Douglas this year I would use the 1st round picks for value, trading down if possible from the #2. I'd definitely be looking at potential QB options on the #34 and in the 3rd round. Getting a 25/75 QB prospect with a 3rd round pick is a whole lot better than getting a 35/65 guy on the #2.
Since 2000, these are the QBs drafted from 25-36: 2020 - Jordan Love 2019 - None 2018 - Lamar Jackson 2017 - None 2016 - Paxton Lynch 2015 - None 2014 - Teddy Bridgewater; Derek Carr 2013 - None 2012 - None 2011 - Andy Dalton; Colin Kaepernick 2010 - Tim Tebow 2009 - Josh Freeman 2008 - None 2007 - Kevin Kolb 2006 - None 2005 - Jason Campbell 2004 - None 2003 - None 2002 - Patrick Ramsey 2001 - Drew Brees 2000 - None. Eleven QBs in 20 years, and really only three can be said to be "Very good" - Lamar Jackson and Derek Carr, Drew Brees. Not the best argument for taking a QB in that range IMO. And IDK what it means, but I find it very interesting that it seems like there's a pattern of every other year producing no QBs taken in that range. Maybe it means nothing, but there is a definite pattern to it. Edit: Fixed the list to go all the way to 2000, and to include Drew Brees as one of three "Very Good" QBs in that range.
Wilson's record for three years at BYU was 7-6, 7-6, 11-1 with a bowl game each year. How is that "unsuccessful"?
I understand what your saying but if the 2017 draft could be done over again the first 2 QB's would be Maholmes and Watson. No one would be complaining about Watson as the #2 QB taken (san ls massage allegations). But again, I understand what you are saying but each draft is independent. Who is to say there won't be another draft where #2 QB taken doesn't turn out to be great or the 2nd QB taken is better than the one taken #1 overall. I understand the past history but you really need to look at each draft in its own light.
@ColoradoContrails You have significant errors in your listing. I recommend http://www.drafthistory.com/index.php/positions/qb They lay it all out where you can see it.
some interesting points.... as to the question of who? I don’t follow college enough to have a good answer on that, but I also don’t remember hearing about Wilson as the #2 guy last year....maybe he was looked at in that way, but to a layman like me, I never heard of him until this year. So I think there are cases where guys kind of come out of the woodwork a little bit. Maybe I’m wrong, but others who follow college ball more closely could better speak to it. as to the second point about being in position to draft a guy next year, it’s funny, and I think there were other threads on this, but there have been plenty of great QBs that didn’t go top 3...including both Mahomes and Watson....Big Ben, etc. there’s a little bit of chicken vs egg discussion there in that maybe they’re going to better teams, and I’m not saying it’s not better to draft first overall than 10th overall....but it HAS happened where good QBs go after top five. so JD may be comfortable building around the QB this year, knowing he can pick up a QB next year. Also not saying I would do that....just saying it’s an option
Yes, You have to look at each draft in its own individual light. What I see here is the pattern of desperation and bad franchises not an issue with drafting a QB at number 2. Maybe just maybe a QB can not develop on his own. It is amazing how high drafted QB's on decent teams do well. If our franchise has truly made improvements continues to put weapons around a QB and we are drafting said QB because our evaluations tell us so and we are not desperate then draft the QB.
That's actually the source I used. I referred to the fourth column which indicates the Overall Draft Position they were taken. I just went back and looked at it again and I don't see where I made any mistakes. Can you be more specific?
Where did I say that? They're taken so frequently because they're difficult to find. And it's even more difficult to find one that can get you past Kirk Cousins and Andy Dalton style playoff one and done while making $26 million per year.
Trade the pick. Get a haul and add major talent all over. Darnold will probably be a competent QB next year under LaFleur. Can always move on from him after the season if he sucks. One year tryout and upgrade the rest of the roster.
I know you didn't say that, I was posting that as a question for you to clarify. Sorry, I still don't understand what you meant when you said: "That's exactly why so many are taken in the first round. Teams think they have found one and are constantly searching for one."
Well first of all, I am looking at the 2021 draft in it's own light. We've got a bunch of mediocre QB prospects and one really good one. That doesn't mean that Justin Fields might not be as good as RGIII, just that it's not likely. It's more likely that he is Mark Sanchez redux. This assuming he doesn't just scrub out fairly quickly - which happens a lot with prospects of his type. It doesn't mean that Zack Wilson might not be as good as Ryan Tannehill, just that it's not likely. It's more likely that he is Mitchell Trubisky redux. This assuming he doesn't scrub out, which is the more likely result. Secondly, another thing that people really don't understand about how QB value in the draft works is how unlikely it is that a QB is there at any point at the top of the draft that will really help a team out. If QB's were there routinely then you'd have multiple QB's taken every year at the top of the draft, because bad teams always need QB's. However even bad teams understand that you can't magically make a top pick QB into a FQB if the potential just isn't there in the 1st place. So instead of 50-odd top pick QB's since the merger we have 21. It's not like the #1 team most years didn't want to take a QB on that pick, because they did. It's that the QB wasn't there for them to take and even a bad team understands about moving their thumb away as they strike with the hammer. Instead of 50-odd #2 pick QB's we have 8 #2 picks QB's since the merger. It's not like the #2 team most years didn't want to take a QB on that pick, because they did. It's that the QB wasn't there for them to take and even a bad team understands about not braining themselves with a soup ladle to get a fly off their forehead. The #2 pick QB's BTW are a sorry lot. Trubisky, Wentz, Mariota, RGIII, McNabb (the good one), Leaf, Mirer, AManning. The point is that just because you need a QB and just because you have a top pick are not good enough reasons to draft a QB up high.
Yes, almost every year - not every year, but often enough - there are QBs who "come out of nowhere" to be drafted high. But it's not very common that a QB shoots up the pre-draft boards without cause. When that happens there's usually good reason for it. That's not to say that's a guarantee of success, but that when a lot of independent analysts agree there's a higher probability that they're right. Even so, a QB who is highly rated by a lot of people can fail because the team they go to sucks and fails to support him (see: Darnold, S. - NY Jets). Baker Mayfield rose quickly up the boards and became the #1 pick, and while the jury is still out. it looks like he'll at least be above average now that the Browns have assembled a good CS and players around him. And I also agree that you can find a FQB later in the first round and even in a later round - if you know what you're doing, AND you put him in a position to succeed. SO this raises the question: Does Douglas know what he's doing? If so, then maybe he's good enough to find that FQB with a later pick. If not, he might not even find it with the #1 pick, let alone the #2. But here's the thing: Let's assume he does know what he's doing and he passes on the #2 pick, what's to stop another team from "stealing" his QB before he gets a chance to take him? For me, it boils down to: I do trust that Douglas knows what he's doing, but I do NOT trust that he'll be able to draft his guy before someone else takes him, so unless he has decided that none of these QBs has the potential to be his FQB, he should use that #2 pick to take him.
Yes, thanks, IDK how the last three years "fell off" my list, and yes I did miss on Freeman being out of that range. Still, I don't think that changes things much.
