There's an old saying: When faced with uncertainty, Dance with the Devil that brought you. There are only 2 QB options that eliminate nearly all uncertainty: Watson or Sam. If Watson has massaged himself out of the running, then Sam Darnold is the only option with more answers than questions. JD/Saleh/LaFleur have 3 years worth of NFL game film, training camp film, weekly practice film on Sam Darnold. They will know exactly what Sam can bring to the offense designed for him. They will know his strengths, and all of his warts. LeFleur will know if he can build an offense that highlights Sam's strengths while limiting his weaknesses or if he can't. And if so, how far that will get us. If the answer is '6-9' wins, then JD will have no choice but to roll the dice on the draft (which is JD's preferred path for team building anyways). If Saleh/LaFleur feel Sam in an offense built just for him can reach 10+ wins a year, then JD might go with 10 wins/yr and use the #2 on the rest of the team. Sam Darnold would bring Saleh 'certainty', whatever that is, while a rookie would bring anything but certainty.....4-12+ wins (which is where 'hopes and dreams' live). If the NFL was the stock market, it would go with Sam Darnold 100 out of 100 times. Dance with the Devil who brought you. Some guys just don't like rolling the dice when there's so much at stake.
If you think Wilson is a legitimate blue chip future star, there is only one choice. Take the QB. If JD doesn't love either of the QB's, trade out of the pick. Having said that, if they end up being stars, that is going to look really bad for him.
I will blow everyone mind but it is quite possible that Darnold is indeed the starting QB next year AND we still select Zach Wilson at 2nd overall...
This will blow my mind up more. Fields to the Patsies is such a Jetsy outcome that it almost seems like destiny.
How crazy is this thread getting? Someone said they'd rather fail at drafting a QB then pick an impact player at a skill position...and a bunch of people agreed with it. So basically we'd rather flush the #2 pick down the toilet then pick a positional pro bowler. The mania is getting thick.
Could be. If LaFleur thinks he can get 10 wins out of Sam and one of the rookies has at least a 50% shot of becoming good, then we could have both for 1/2 a season or longer!
I understand your desire for a QB but saying you'd rather fail then take a good player is silly. Its desperate.
It's an intelligent way of looking at it. The risk/reward for hitting on a QB via the draft is massive. If it works you're set at the most important position in sports for 10-15 years, and a third of those years are on a very cheap contract (especially beneficial given QB is the most expensive position, so the relative gain of them being cheap is greater than other positions). Let's say there's a game you can play where you spin two wheels. You have a 25% chance of winning $1,000 on the first wheel and a 20% chance of winning $1,500 on the second wheel. It's always smarter to spin the second wheel than the first even though your chances of winning are smaller, because the payout for the second wheel is so much higher than the first. Over a long enough time horizon you will almost always come out ahead doing nothing but spinning the second wheel. Not a perfect analogy for drafting a QB vs. other positions but it works. I would argue that QB's are slightly more likely to bust than other positions but massively more helpful than all other positions when they do hit.
I rather have taken the chance and fail than not. I don’t fault the Jets for drafting Sanchez but do fault them for passing on Mahomes. It’s not desperation; it’s understanding the value of the position in this sport and in all sports to be honest.
The risk is far less than it was under the new CBA rules. A decade or so ago if you whiffed on a high pick QB you’d be hamstrung for 4-5 years. Now you can draft Rosen one year & Murray the next. The reward greatly outweighs the perceived risk in this current NFL.
The post didn't say I'd rather risk, it said I'd rather fail. To be fair, it could imply that we would rather risk and fail then draft a PB player. But its sill ridiculous.
You're twisting the meaning of what he said. He was saying he'd rather take the chance and the risk of failure that comes with it than not take the chance at all. Obviously nobody here prefers us to whiff on draft picks, come on.
You have to be pretty sure Fields or Wilson can be legitimately great to take one of them at 2 IMO. I don’t want above average there when you can get a haul and set the rest of the team up by trading down. Rolling the dice just because we need a QB and they’re the best on the board so why not is bad business. I wouldn’t mind picking up some extra capital and then taking Lance or Fields in a small trade down if you’re not sure but “like” them all similarly. Bottom line, I’m only holding at 2 to take a QB if I absolutely love their prospects of being great in the NFL...anything short of that and I’m mitigating risk by trading down if at all possible. Staying with Sam or then drafting a QB is irrelevant at that point. I need to 100% believe you’re the guy to be the pick at 2 overall
It's also misunderstanding the value of the 2nd most important draft position in all of sports. You don't gamble it on a player with as many red flags as Wilson has unless you have a solid team that can afford the bust.
