2025 NFL Season Thread

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by pilight

In many cases they're drafted that high because they are QBs rather than because they're good enough to be drafted high. The talking heads and many GMs have bought into the notion that QBs have to be overdrafted with little-to-no evidence to support it.

So that doesn't mean drafting a QB early was wrong. It means assessment of the QB's value was wrong.

You're right, QB's value in the draft is often inflated.

That doesn't mean if you don't have a signal caller, you pass up Stafford or Burrow just because it is too early. And if it was so "doable" to find a QB in the later rounds, why aren't teams hitting on them? Why didn't Jimmy Clausen, Troy Smith, Josh Johnson, Mason Rudolph, or Davis Mills pan out?
And why pick at QB only? Cleveland hasn't won a SB w/Myles Garrett. Washington traded Chase Young. Maybe we shouldn't draft rush ends early. Detroit has yet to make a Super Bowl. Maybe any pick they make in the top 5 should be avoided by the entire league.

Franchises picking in the top 5 are usually there because they are bad organizations. Teams that have been winning SB's like the Pats, Chiefs, Seahawks & Eagles rarely find themselves picking that early. So is picking in the 20's the sweet spot now? Or is that just a reflection of a team that has its crap together? Cause they aren't dependent on one player turning them around. They have an entire system that helps everyone attain success.

[Syd Thrift]

The bigger issue is that teams who draft in the top 5 tend to be awful and have no supporting cast around the new guy. Sam Darnold got blown up in New York exactly because they didn’t have the means to protect him and he saw ghosts. A Pat Mahomes on the other hand got to not only sit for a year and watch a vet (a 1st overall pick no less) but had a team around him and a good coach, etc.

Guys get overdrafted all to hell too - Mitch Trubisky is the biggest culprit I can think of since he got overdrafted while I was living in Chicago - but more than anything else those guys at the very top of the draft usually are pretty great, they just can’t do it all themselves. Meanwhile your SUPER BOWL CHAMPS have drafted a total of 3 QBs during the Schneider era, none of them earlier than the third round.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by pilight

Trading up is even worse. You know when the last time a team traded up to the top five before the draft, drafted a QB, and won a championship with that QB? Never. It hasn't happened in the entire history of the NFL. It's worked a couple of times by trading after the draft, when it is cheaper, but trading up before to get a QB never works.

Yeah, that trade up for Trey Lance really worked out. I never understood what they saw in that QB. Why would you drat a running QB to be a pocket passer?

[pilight]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

The bigger issue is that teams who draft in the top 5 tend to be awful and have no supporting cast around the new guy. Sam Darnold got blown up in New York exactly because they didn’t have the means to protect him and he saw ghosts. A Pat Mahomes on the other hand got to not only sit for a year and watch a vet (a 1st overall pick no less) but had a team around him and a good coach, etc.

What the Seahawks and Rams have shown us is that if you build a strong team, you can acquire a QB who's good enough to win. It's much harder to do it the other way around.

Most QBs have a hard time adjusting to the NFL game. Guys who have played their whole life in shotgun are having to learn how to work under center 30-40% of their snaps. Guys who have always been the most athletic person on the field have to adjust to playing against defensive linemen who can run them down. Guys who are used to dumping off screens for big yards have to learn how to manage the narrower hash marks. RPO guys have to make quicker decisions because of the NFL's tighter rules about linemen blocking downfield on pass plays. All that's in addition to the faster pass rush, tighter throwing windows, and better disguised coverages.

[Cobra Mgr]

Ready to go, playoff caliber QB's are rarely made available. The Stafford situation was unique. Det had a HOF talent headed to his declining years that was their best asset to fuel a rebuild and they got a SB QB in return. Darnold was made attainable and it cost the guy who released him his employment. Any GM who bases his future acquisition of a QB off of those past situations will likewise be looking for income.

[pilight]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Ready to go, playoff caliber QB's are rarely made available. The Stafford situation was unique. Det had a HOF talent headed to his declining years that was their best asset to fuel a rebuild and they got a SB QB in return. Darnold was made attainable and it cost the guy who released him his employment. Any GM who bases his future acquisition of a QB off of those past situations will likewise be looking for income.

It has a better success rate than spending a high pick on a QB then trying to build a team around them. Aside from those two you've got the Bucs with Tom Brady, the Broncos with Peyton Manning, and the Saints with Drew Brees that are all more recent than the last time a team won a title with a QB they drafted top 5.

[Cobra Mgr]

And you've got the Jets w/Brett Favre. And the Jets with Aaron Rodgers. And the Jets w/Ryan Fitzpatrick. And the Jets w/Michael Vick. And the Jets w/Tim Tebow. And the Jets w/Joe Flacco.

So would that discourage you from going that route? Or would you conclude the success of those acquisitions was doomed by the dysfunction of the Jets organization?

Once again, the position of the pick when the QB is chosen has nothing to do w/the chance of success.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Ready to go, playoff caliber QB's are rarely made available. The Stafford situation was unique. Det had a HOF talent headed to his declining years that was their best asset to fuel a rebuild and they got a SB QB in return. Darnold was made attainable and it cost the guy who released him his employment. Any GM who bases his future acquisition of a QB off of those past situations will likewise be looking for income.

For the most part I agree with you. But on Darnold, and I think I'm repeating myself. But do you pay a QB market value based on one season? His past wasn't pretty, and I realize it had a lot to do with the teams, but still. It's one good year.

Settle didn't have to pay him market value, but the Vikings absolutely would have had to pay it. I guess I would have leaned towards paying it over going with an unknown.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by pilight

It has a better success rate than spending a high pick on a QB then trying to build a team around them. Aside from those two you've got the Bucs with Tom Brady, the Broncos with Peyton Manning, and the Saints with Drew Brees that are all more recent than the last time a team won a title with a QB they drafted top 5.

I'm just not sure why you are targeting the top 5. What is the difference between top 5 QB picks and any other QB drafted that wins with the team that drafted them?