What do you want Pats to do with #3?

[Cellar-Door]

On the most recent Move the Sticks podcast, Daniel Jeremiah laid out what he thought would be a reasonable trade down, with the Giants-swapping 3 for the Giants #6, plus the Giants' two number twos this year and a number two next year. if the Pats could make a trade like that, I would take it, assuming Maye and Williams are off the board. Gives you the #6 (so you get one of Nabors/Odunze or Alt/Fashanu) plus 3 more picks in the top 50-really should be able to get two more contributors out of that. It also gives you some draft capital to move back into the first round if you want, if a higher rated player slides. Plus it sets you up well for next year, with an extra second. I'd do a trade like this with the Giants or Atlanta, because that still guarantees you one of those 4 guys. I wouldn't do it with Min or Vegas, unless they got a LOT more (like the PFN mock draft was doing), because then you are below that top tier of player that everyone seems to agree on.

I don't think this is a one year rebuild, and I'd rather see them build a solid core, with talent at multiple positions, if they can.

If that type of offer isn't there, I'd take Daniels. If he doesn't make it, I'm ok with that, they took a swing. BUT they have to nail 2 and 3. That's two other guys in the top 68. No more Cole Strange or Duke Dawson type picks. They have to get NFL level talent at those spots.

So also worth noting he originally floated this in response to a question about price, but in the same call said he thought NE would take a QB at 3 over trading down.

As to the bolded, it's a classic mistake.... NFL rebuilds generally are until you get your QB, so if you pass on a QB at #3 what is the QB plan.... if it is "draft one in the future"... well are you willing to take the chance (a pretty high one) that you may not have a chance at a better one next year (highly likely) or maybe not even the year after, or the year after. You many never get a chance. Or you may have to mortgage a bunch of future picks to move up, or... you might finally get one as the guys you passed on the QB this year for come up for new contracts and you can't keep them all.

As a side note... I'd take a Strange equivalent at 68 in a heartbeat, probably at 34 too. He's been hurt but he's been a pretty good starting guard when healthy, he's very much an NFL talent even with the games missed AV puts him as having been more valuable than 3 of the OL drafted before him in round 1.

Edit- you want an example of what a team that doesn't get their QB and builds everything else first looks like.... take a gander through the browns' history.
2012- they had the 3rd pick, didn't move up for RG3, drafted Trent RIchardson at 3 (best QB left was Tannehill) then used a late 1st on Brandon Weedon...
2013- terrible QB class they don't pick anyone
2014- another terrible QB class, they take Manziel in the 1st. (after trading down from 4)
2015- 2 QBs in the class they can't move up (no other QBs go until the 3rd)
2016- they trade out of the #2 pick (PHI takes Wentz)
2017- #1 overall pick, consensus top 3 QBs are WAtson, Trubisky Mahomes. They take none of them.
Note they have finished last in their division every single one of these years, and all the players from 2012 and 2013 drafts (and all non-1sts from 2014 draft) have run out of contract.
2018- #1 pick again, this time they take Baker Mayfield.

From that point on they didn't finish last in the division until 2022, in 2020 they made the playoffs for the first time since 2020..... draft QBs.

 

[E5 Yaz]

If the Pats can draft Maye or Daniels at #3, but choose to trade down and the guys they take are so so while Maye or Daniels becomes great, they’ll be crucified forever and rightly so.

And if they stay at 3, pick the QB and he turns out to be a bust?

 

[BaseballJones]

And if they stay at 3, pick the QB and he turns out to be a bust?

They won't get crucified nearly as badly for that. Everyone knows that they desperately need a QB, and taking one of the top 3 - when the vast majority of analysts think they're all in the same tier, far ahead of the rest - at least makes all kinds of sense. We all know that sometimes it doesn't work out.

 

[E5 Yaz]

They won't get crucified nearly as badly for that. Everyone knows that they desperately need a QB, and taking one of the top 3 - when the vast majority of analysts think they're all in the same tier, far ahead of the rest - at least makes all kinds of sense. We all know that sometimes it doesn't work out.

Agreed, but there's an underlying presumption ... that the QB who turns out to be a stud would help them more than the chance to fortify multiple spots with the trade return.
It's just how I would play it, but if they're overwhelmed by an offer for the pick -- and it at least would have to include a future first-rounder -- I'd make the trade and built things up across the board.
Williams seems a clear difference-maker; but there no doubt will be guys next year whose reputations, by this time next year, will be on par with Maye or Daniels. It happens every year.
I mean, I won't be disappointed if they take the QB. I just think the across-the-board needs merit taking the exchange of picks.

 

[Jimbodandy]

And if they stay at 3, pick the QB and he turns out to be a bust?

They're not getting killed for drafting Mac at 15. They needed a QB, and he was there. Pick 3 is materially higher obviously, but they need a QB, and one will be there.

 

[BaseballJones]

Agreed, but there's an underlying presumption ... that the QB who turns out to be a stud would help them more than the chance to fortify multiple spots with the trade return.
It's just how I would play it, but they're overwhelmed by an offer for the pick -- and it at least would have to include a future first-rounder -- I'd make the trade and built things up across the board.
Williams seems a clear difference-maker; but there no doubt will be guys next year whose reputations, by this time next year, will be on par with Maye or Daniels. It happens every year.
I mean, I won't be disappointed if they take the QB. I just think the across-the-board needs merit taking the exchange of picks.

Fair.

I was just commenting mainly on the blowback they'd get under those circumstances I outlined.

 

[Cellar-Door]

Agreed, but there's an underlying presumption ... that the QB who turns out to be a stud would help them more than the chance to fortify multiple spots with the trade return.
It's just how I would play it, but they're overwhelmed by an offer for the pick -- and it at least would have to include a future first-rounder -- I'd make the trade and built things up across the board.
Williams seems a clear difference-maker; but there no doubt will be guys next year whose reputations, by this time next year, will be on par with Maye or Daniels. It happens every year.
I mean, I won't be disappointed if they take the QB. I just think the across-the-board needs merit taking the exchange of picks.

This is decidedly untrue. There may be guys who get drafted at the top, but 2023 and 2022 for example did not have guys with reputations on par with those guys (same for 2013 and 2014), and many years had ONE guy with that kind of rep.

 

[E5 Yaz]

This is decidedly untrue. There may be guys who get drafted at the top, but 2023 and 2022 for example did not have guys with reputations on par with those guys (same for 2013 and 2014), and many years had ONE guy with that kind of rep.

I can't predict the future, and never have put much faith in the opinions of those who claim that ability.

 

[Cellar-Door]

I can't predict the future, and never have put much faith in the opinions of those who claim that ability.

I mean... that's my exact point. You argued that next year there will "no doubt" be guys who have the same rep. We have no idea if there will be, but given history we can say it is not "no doubt". Unless a guy is (like Caleb) already a prospect who would go top 5 now but can't come out by rule, you don't know what prospects will be there. There is nobody going back to school who would have been top 10 (or even likely round 1) this year, so there is no basis to assume there will be a Daniels or Maye level prospect next year. Might be a Kenny Pickett type year, or a EJ Mauel year, etc. Where nobody thinks there is a QB worthy of going early 1st.

 

[NextBigThing8184]

Agreed, but there's an underlying presumption ... that the QB who turns out to be a stud would help them more than the chance to fortify multiple spots with the trade return.
It's just how I would play it, but if they're overwhelmed by an offer for the pick -- and it at least would have to include a future first-rounder -- I'd make the trade and built things up across the board.
Williams seems a clear difference-maker; but there no doubt will be guys next year whose reputations, by this time next year, will be on par with Maye or Daniels. It happens every year.
I mean, I won't be disappointed if they take the QB. I just think the across-the-board needs merit taking the exchange of picks.

Maye was being talked about as possible 1B to Williams 1A over a year ago. Nobody in next year’s class (Ewers, Allar, Sanders, Beck, Leonard etc) is as highly regarded now as Maye was this time last year.

I could see someone “pulling a Daniels” and shooting up, as you say, it happens every year (see Anthony Richardson).

Of course the problem is, that there’s no guarantee that happens (see the Pickett class) and there’s no guarantee the Pats are drafting highly enough to get the “riser”

There’s a world where the Pats pass on Daniels, trade down, get a bevy of picks to add a tackle and some other help and then have to trade up (giving up a similar bounty) to get a guy who is at best a similar tier prospect.

On top of that, you’re likely going to need your rookie QB - whomever it is - to develop before he becomes a true stud (maybe not as with Stroud and others but guys like Allen, even Burrow etc took a year)

If you kick the can down the road to 2025 or 2026, you’re looking at 2026-2028 before your guy is fully developed and then the guys you get from the 2024 “bounty of picks” will be either flops, or approaching contract/5th year options

There is no perfect solution obviously but betting that there will be equal or better prospects in the draft and that those prospects will be available to you wherever your draft slot is seems like a riskier play than just taking a swing when you know for sure you’re going to have one highly regarded guy sitting there.

 

[E5 Yaz]

I mean... that's my exact point. You argued that next year there will "no doubt" be guys who have the same rep. We have no idea if there will be, but given history we can say it is not "no doubt". Unless a guy is (like Caleb) already a prospect who would go top 5 now but can't come out by rule, you don't know what prospects will be there. There is nobody going back to school who would have been top 10 (or even likely round 1) this year, so there is no basis to assume there will be a Daniels or Maye level prospect next year. Might be a Kenny Pickett type year, or a EJ Mauel year, etc. Where nobody thinks there is a QB worthy of going early 1st.

True, but there will be QBs who rise to the level of being "best in their draft class" who, right now, we know little about and they will be thought of as the QBs to select for teams needing one. We'll find out, but I just don't put much stock in what scouting experts say now about a class a year out. Too many variables stand in the way. That's just how I view things.
As I said, I wouldn't be upset if they take the third QB off the board this year; I'd just prefer an overwhelming offer for the pick -- and go with a pillow QB -- given the need to address multiple positions. I especially want to see them have two firsts in 2025 so they can chain-reaction maneuver, as BB & Co did in the early years. Again, that's just my preference.

 

[Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt]

the problem with your “Russell Wilson if they don’t like Daniels” plan is that Wilson (and virtually every other veteran QB) will move around prior to the draft - before you know what Washington does at 2

Maybe Fields gets dealt on draft day but the rest of the guys who could be a bridge or passable starter will be likely gone by April

Agree with the rest of your thoughts. Trading down and getting a worse prospect (Penix, Nix or taking a shot on a Pratt, Rattler type etc) seems like the worst of all worlds.

In the “trade down to load up on talent scenario”, where is the QB coming from? Are the Pats pinning their hopes on a 3rd or 4th tier rookie? Go get one next year (and why would we think any of those guys are less flawed than Daniels or Maye or will be available wherever the Pats pick). Why is the assumption that the Pats bonanza of picks they get actually ends up in a “load” of talent and not a bunch of duds or one good starter and not much else?

We don't want a "bridge" or passable starter. AT ALL. Do we? Or do you mean sign Brisset as a back-up who can start the first month? Because it's pure madness if the Patriots sign a 30-something guy as QB1. Please tell me this isn't remotely in the realm of possibility.

 

[Cellar-Door]

True, but there will be QBs who rise to the level of being "best in their draft class" who, right now, we know little about and they will be thought of as the QBs to select for teams needing one. We'll find out, but I just don't put much stock in what scouting experts say now about a class a year out. Too many variables stand in the way. That's just how I view things.
As I said, I wouldn't be upset if they take the third QB off the board this year; I'd just prefer an overwhelming offer for the pick -- and go with a pillow QB -- given the need to address multiple positions. I especially want to see them have two firsts in 2025 so they can chain-reaction maneuver, as BB & Co did in the early years. Again, that's just my preference.

See I think you're doing this backwards. You're saying "I don't care about projections a year out",.... which is fine. But then you're jumping to "there will be QBs of a similar level next year", but there is no reason to think that. I agree that you shouldn't read much into projections about a class a year out.... but you should pair that with the assumption that there won't be a top QB available to you, because that is the case more often than not.

I'm fine with the argument that trading down brings value.... but... you can't assume you'll ever get another shot at a top QB prospect. You seem to be making the mistake many do, you're building into your value judgement an unknown as of yet positive value QB down the road...and many a moribund franchise' fans can tell you.... they aren't always there. I'm muc more open to the argument of "go get Fields for a 2nd/3rd" or "sign Russ Wilson to a 4 year big money deal". Not what I would do, but at least that is a real plan. "Hope a QB is somehow available in the future" is not one.

 

[Bowser]

The fundamental problem with this specific and (if you read other fan boards) commonly laid out "find value" plan is it unfortunately doesn't really acknowledge the extreme improbability you even see the actual opportunity to draft McCarthy after spending your 1st round pick on anything that isn't a QB.

If we accepted the trade with the Giants outlined above, I think it's likely McCarthy would be available at 6, but I take your point. If he's not, I've bungled everything.

If you think that even across tiers your scouts can't assess players... might as well not draft anybody before the 4th round, just trade out of all the premium picks.

I'm saying fine distinctions can't be made within tiers of prospects. But yes, I'm speculating that McCarthy will sneak into the bottom of Tier 2 with Maye and Daniels. Could easily be wrong.

3.. I mentioned it before, but QB isn't like any other position, margins are very slim between franchise altering to replacement level to wasted pick, given that you shouldn't want to trade even a little bit of that likelihood because any increase at other positions won't make it up.

This is well put and a very good point. OK, I'm going to try to put it another way, and then I'll let it go...

If you're primarily interested in solving the QB situation, as you seem to be, then yes, you'll want to maximize your chances of landing a franchise QB -- within reason, e.g., you're not going to draft a QB in every round. Why accept McCarthy when you can have Daniels? Why pass on Daniels when you may never even get the chance to draft McCarthy? Fair points.

However, if you are trying to balance solving the QB problem with solving problems at other positions, AND you're staring at what look to be very enticing prospects at OT, TE, and WR, AND you realize that drafting a QB with a 20% likelihood of success rather than a 25% likelihood might mean the ability to put Tyler Guyton on your roster, then maybe you're willing to tolerate the decrement you realize when you pass on Daniels in favor of McCarthy. Why? Because the most likely outcome is that neither Daniels nor McCarthy will be any good.

Note: I would not be playing this value-seeking game if we had a shot at a prospect like Williams. He's a cut above the others.

 

[NextBigThing8184]

If we accepted the trade with the Giants outlined above, I think it's likely McCarthy would be available at 6, but I take your point. If he's not, I've bungled everything.

I'm saying fine distinctions can't be made within tiers of prospects. But yes, I'm speculating that McCarthy will sneak into the bottom of Tier 2 with Maye and Daniels. Could easily be wrong.

This is well put and a very good point. OK, I'm going to try to put it another way, and then I'll let it go...

If you're primarily interested in solving the QB situation, as you seem to be, then yes, you'll want to maximize your chances of landing a franchise QB -- within reason, e.g., you're not going to draft a QB in every round. Why accept McCarthy when you can have Daniels? Why pass on Daniels when you may never even get the chance to draft McCarthy? Fair points.

However, if you are trying to balance solving the QB problem with solving problems at other positions, AND you're staring at what look to be very enticing prospects at OT, TE, and WR, AND you realize that drafting a QB with a 20% likelihood of success rather than a 25% likelihood might mean the ability to put Tyler Guyton on your roster, then maybe you're willing to tolerate the decrement you realize when you pass on Daniels in favor of McCarthy. Why? Because the most likely outcome is that neither Daniels nor McCarthy will be any good.

Note: I would not be playing this value-seeking game if we had a shot at a prospect like Williams. He's a cut above the others.

The problem with your “balance solving the QB with solving other problems” scenario is that Wolf (et al) have no idea if the “20%” guy would be available wherever they would want to take him.

Let’s say you knew for sure Daniels had a 25% hit rate and McCarthy had a 20% hit rate. And that the “hit” would be the same level of play (i.e. in both cases they end up being a franchise top 7 QB type), you still need to significantly discount McCarthy because there’s a good chance you don’t realize any of that 20% because someone nabs him in front of you. So you end up with (e.g. Tyler Guyton) and no QB or a QB with a 5% hit probability (e.g. Rattler)

 

[DJnVa]

Riffing off this question from a mailbag at The Athletic. This seems to be how a lot of the offseason discussion is going:

I look at the draft and see two guys you can “pencil” into Canton — Marvin Harrison and Joe Alt. Why should the Patriots draft anyone else? — JM

I wouldn’t pencil in anyone for a gold jacket just yet, but I see your point. Both of them are pretty close to can’t-miss prospects, and for a team with so few standout players, there’s logic to taking one of them.

But here’s the rationale for taking a quarterback: It’s so hard to move up to a top-three spot to get one. Usually, you’ve got to mortgage some of your future to do it. So if you’ve got a chance to stand pat and take a quarterback you feel even reasonably confident in, it can pay massive dividends given how important the position is even if you have to pass up on sure things like Harrison and Alt. You could build up the rest of the roster and wait on a quarterback, but the price might be too high down the road to get the quarterback you need.

There seems to be an assumption among many that we'll hit on any non-QB and miss on any QB.

 

[ManhattanRedSox]

Legitimate question here - the Pats have drafted a QB high and, by most reports, have missed. Does drafting a QB in the top 3 do anything but defer the cost of signing a good FA QB 5 years down the road? Asked differently, wouldn't it be wise to draft Harrison or Alt at 3, and get an NFL-ready (proven, not a scout's interpretation) QB to run the offense, rather than drafting a QB high, sitting him to learn from a journeyman vet, and then playing him (or playing him immediately and hope he doesn't go full David Carr)?

 

[Justthetippett]

Riffing off this question from a mailbag at The Athletic. This seems to be how a lot of the offseason discussion is going:





There seems to be an assumption among many that we'll hit on any non-QB and miss on any QB.

Also, if anyone can turn MHJ and Alt into misses, it's our current QB.

The fascinating part of NFL team building is the number of moving parts, and how they affect each other. For that reason, if they do go with a non-QB, I hope it's via a lucrative trade down, where they add multiple other pieces. If they stand pat and draft one of these guys, that's going to be very disappointing. They will not have used their asset to their full advantage.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

I look at the draft and see two guys you can “pencil” into Canton — Marvin Harrison and Joe Alt. Why should the Patriots draft anyone else? — JM

My answer to that question is "Should teams use the draft to find HOF'ers, or use the draft to build teams that win Lombardis?"

Joe Thomas, John Hannah, Calvin Johnson, Randy Moss, Anthony Munoz and on and on and on...

And the game has only gotten more QB dependent since those guys played, not less. You simply can't hope to be the 1 team out of 32 over a decade to catch lightning in a bottle and win with Nick Foles.

 

[NDame616]

I suck at the internet so forgive me for not imbedding the X/Twitter graphic of Murray saying "Our franchise QB"

Assuming we believe they are telling the truth, what does this do to the market for us shopping #3?

 

[Cellar-Door]

Legitimate question here - the Pats have drafted a QB high and, by most reports, have missed. Does drafting a QB in the top 3 do anything but defer the cost of signing a good FA QB 5 years down the road? Asked differently, wouldn't it be wise to draft Harrison or Alt at 3, and get an NFL-ready (proven, not a scout's interpretation) QB to run the offense, rather than drafting a QB high, sitting him to learn from a journeyman vet, and then playing him (or playing him immediately and hope he doesn't go full David Carr)?

Generally... no, because you can't get high level NFL QBs usually any way but the draft. Closest in recent years is Watson... that took the biggest guaranteed contract ever, three 1sts, a 3rd and a 4th, and was likely only possible because he was a sex offender.

Drafting a QB early (and Mac was not that early and not really a comp for this year's decision) and hitting gives you a 5-7 year window, with years 2-4 being great windows (QB not expensive yet). If you miss, well try again.

There are a lot of great players on crap teams, often for their entire careers. There are not very many great QBs on crap teams for long. People keep proposing the "build the team" strategy, but it basically never works unless you then get a QB, and getting the QB is the hardest part. There is plenty of evidence for the "get the QB, build around him" approach working.

 

[chilidawg]

Lazar has a pre-combine look at the QB's:

Tier 1 Williams (Consensus #1 pick)
Tier 2 Maye/Daniels ( Top 10 picks)
Tier 3 Penix (Late 1st early 2nd)
Tier 4 McCarthy/Nix (Top 50)

Not much surprise, other than not being on the McCarthy hype train.

https://www.patriots.com/news/lazar-s-nfl-draft-tiers-pre-combine-quarterback-rankings

 

[Cellar-Door]

Lazar has a pre-combine look at the QB's:

Tier 1 Williams (Consensus #1 pick)
Tier 2 Maye/Daniels ( Top 10 picks)
Tier 3 Penix (Late 1st early 2nd)
Tier 4 McCarthy/Nix (Top 50)

Not much surprise, other than not being on the McCarthy hype train.

https://www.patriots.com/news/lazar-s-nfl-draft-tiers-pre-combine-quarterback-rankings

His comps are a little hilarious... Williams' floor is a multi-time pro-bowl SB winner, Bo Nix's floor is an enormous rocketarmed QB who he shares nothing with. Penix's floor is Geno Smith?
I get that comps are hard and you want names people know but cmon.

 

[MikeM]

And the game has only gotten more QB dependent since those guys played, not less. You simply can't hope to be the 1 team out of 32 over a decade to catch lightning in a bottle and win with Nick Foles.

Why not include Stafford on that list? Since without the move to that LA you can bet the farm he's getting summed up in the "can't win QB" generalization category by a fair amount of the same people who like to put guys like Cousins in there. Or by the people who want to claim the same about SF and/or Purdy after coming up short in Superbowl OT this year.

I personally think that a lot of those type of modern takes today are actually being skewed pretty heavy by the underlying fact NE and KC have spent the better half of the last decade taking turns winning titles as some of the better run and coached franchises in NFL history (longer obviously in NE's case). Franchises that for all of Brady and Mahomes acknowledged greatness had overall success stories that ran a lot deeper then just who their QB was.

I'm guessing once this Reid driven KC team finally starts coming up short you start seeing a lot more gradual adoption towards the Ben Johnson "the right coaching and systems can find adequate production value at QB outside the draft" approach to turning a team around.

 

[DJnVa]

 

[Deathofthebambino]

Why not include Stafford on that list? Since without the move to that LA you can bet the farm he's getting summed up in the "can't win QB" generalization category by a fair amount of the same people who like to put guys like Cousins in there. Or by the people who want to claim the same about SF and/or Purdy after coming up short in Superbowl OT this year.

I personally think that a lot of those type of modern takes today are actually being skewed pretty heavy by the underlying fact NE and KC have spent the better half of the last decade taking turns winning titles as some of the better run and coached franchises in NFL history (longer obviously in NE's case). Franchises that for all of Brady and Mahomes acknowledged greatness had overall success stories that ran a lot deeper then just who their QB was.

I'm guessing once this Reid driven KC team finally starts coming up short you start seeing a lot more gradual adoption towards the Ben Johnson "the right coaching and systems can find adequate production value at QB outside the draft" approach to turning a team around.

Those same people that compare Stafford to Cousins are either forgetting or don't care to look into the differences.

Stafford was the #1 overall pick, had all of the tools. He had an ok rookie year, although the team was 2-8 in his starts (not his fault, IMO), then got hurt and IR'ed at the end of the season.

In year 2, he separated his shoulder in week 3, and had to have season ending surgery with Dr. Andrews.

In year 3, he returns, leads Detroit to the playoffs with a 10-6 record, and throws for over 5,000 yards, 41tds and 12ints. They had a top 5 offense. They then lost 45-28 to with Stafford throwing for 380 yards and 3tds and he ran for another td, but they couldn't stop a nosebleed and Drew Brees went for 466 yards and 3tds.

In year 4, they went 4-12, again Stafford threw for almost 5,000 yards, but the defense gave up over 430 points (27th in the NFL).

In year 5, they incredibly bring Jim Schwartz back again, Stafford is fine, the rest of the team blows. They got 7-9.

In year 6, they bring in Caldwell, and they go 11-5, their defense is fantastic that year, they make the playoffs, have to go on the road to Dallas and they blow a 20-17 lead with under 3 minutes to go to lose 24-20.

In year 7, they fire Lombardi as OC, hire Jim Bob Cooter and they got 7-9 after firing him midway through the season. Despite that, Stafford goes for 4,200 yards, 33tds and 12ints. Their defense fell from 2nd in PA the previous season to 23rd this season.

They lose in the playoffs the next year in Seattle. Bad game all around. Stafford had 4,300 yards, 24tds and 10ints that season, despite Megatron retiring out of the blue at 30 years old in the offseason before that.

In year 9, somehow Caldwell still has a job, they go 9-7 again, miss the playoffs, but Stafford has 4,450 yards, 29tds, 10ints and their offense is ranked #7 in the NFL, too bad their defense was #21.

In year 10, he gets the great Matt Patricia, his leading running back is LeGarrette Blount (yes, that one) and Kerryon Johnson, and his leading receiver is Kenny Golladay.

In year 11, he was on pace at the halfway mark of the season to have 5,000 yards, 38tds and 10ints when he broke his neck or whatever. Their defense was #26 in the NFL.

He comes back the next season with the corpse of AP as his running back, Marvin Jones and 35 year old Amendola as his leading receivers, and the absolute worst defense in the NFL, 32nd in both points against and yards against. Oh and Darrell Bevell now at HC.

Then he mercifully gets to the Rams


I mean shit, he went to LA and won, and Goff went to Detroit. Both have been more successful than where they left, but Goff had the benefit of walking into the Dan Campbell situation, whereas Stafford played for Schwartz/Caldwell/Patricia/Bevell. They both got better coaching and both had success because the team around them was better. Goff hasn't won one yet either, but he's also not Nick Foles. He, like Stafford, is a former #1 pick. These are good QB's, very good QB's, but even very good QB's need good situations around them. Dan Marino can probably speak to that better than I can.

Are we really talking about finding adequate QB production outside the draft? We're talking about 2 guys who literally were #1 draft picks. Goff had just signed a 4yr/134mil deal with the Rams before he went to Detroit. And that wasn't Ben Johnson's move. Jared Goff played for the LIons for a year before they hired Ben Johnson.

 

[Saints Rest]

I’ve been among those who say “build your team then get your QB” because a qb with no OLine and no receivers is almost worthless. But with the amount of cap space the Pats have, I think they can do full around the QB pretty effectively.
Tag Onwenu
Draft the QB still standing at 3
Draft a WR and OT in rounds 2&3 (not necessarily in that order)
Sign a WR
Draft or sign a receiving threat at RB

 

[NextBigThing8184]

I’ve been among those who say “build your team then get your QB” because a qb with no OLine and no receivers is almost worthless. But with the amount of cap space the Pats have, I think they can do full around the QB pretty effectively.
Tag Onwenu
Draft the QB still standing at 3
Draft a WR and OT in rounds 2&3 (not necessarily in that order)
Sign a WR
Draft or sign a receiving threat at RB

A stud WR or franchise tackle is just as worthless without a QB.

Is there a world where Marvin Harrison or Joe Alt + Bailey Zappe/Mason Rudolph/Jacoby Brissett is actually a good team or a good use of Harrison/Alt’s talent?

 

[BaseballJones]

All other things being equal, what's better:

Stud LT, Harrison at WR, and Russell Wilson at QB

or

Meh LT, decent WR, and Drake Maye at QB

For 2025, I'd assume the first one, by a mile. But 8 years from now, I'd say the second. And at that point, that QB (assuming Maye works out) would just be reaching his prime.

 

[DJnVa]

All other things being equal, what's better:

Stud LT, Harrison at WR, and Russell Wilson at QB

or

Meh LT, decent WR, and Drake Maye at QB

For 2025, I'd assume the first one, by a mile. But 8 years from now, I'd say the second. And at that point, that QB (assuming Maye works out) would just be reaching his prime.

So in #1 it's MHJ in first round at #3 and stud LT with second pick?

So how come in #2 we take Maye at #3 and can't get the same stud LT with second pick?

Or am I missing something?

 

[BaseballJones]

So in #1 it's MHJ in first round at #3 and stud LT with second pick?

So how come in #2 we take Maye at #3 and can't get the same stud LT with second pick?

Just.....because.

 

[DJnVa]

Just.....because.

FAIR! lol

The choices seem more likely to be:

#1: Maye/Daniels and really good OT a #34 and hope a WR falls and/or we had success in FA

or

#2: MHJ and really good OT and sign Wilson or someone

or

#3: Trade down, possibly get Nabors or Odunze (at #8 maybe), and draft OT/second tier QB with extra picks

 

[Cellar-Door]

All other things being equal, what's better:

Stud LT, Harrison at WR, and Russell Wilson at QB

or

Meh LT, decent WR, and Drake Maye at QB

For 2025, I'd assume the first one, by a mile. But 8 years from now, I'd say the second. And at that point, that QB (assuming Maye works out) would just be reaching his prime.

Where did the Stud LT come from?

But the answer is probably #2 to me anyway, you can get your OT in the 1st next year, lots of paths to WRs... young franchise QBs are very very hard to find and I'd rather a higher percentage shot at that than anything else.

 

[BaseballJones]

FAIR! lol

Haha that was my way of saying...I didn't really think that through. I assume you got that.

 

[DJnVa]

Haha that was my way of saying...I didn't really think that through. I assume you got that.

Absolutely.

 

[MikeM]

Are we really talking about finding adequate QB production outside the draft?

As long as there is no shortage of badly run franchises and potentially bad scheming/coaching matchup fits/situations coming out of college continuously pumping talented former #1 draft pick QBs back into the dramatically cheaper acquisition cost reclamation project pool?

Yeah, pretty much imo. To the point that within the next 10 years I genuinely believe you'll see a notable amount of teams shifting away from arguably outdated ideologies that are basically not directly evaluating those outside possibility fits as one in the same to to what the draft crop is offering. Or which essentially refuse to acknowledge things like say....Justin Fields being bigger, faster, more athletic, and with better individual ability tape then the draft pool hype prospect that ideology is demanding you prefer over him because that ideogogy ultimately values their "virgin" qualities at the NFL level over anything else.

Which isn't the same as saying you never draft a lottery QB, of course.

 

[Curtis Pride]

I'm comparing this year's Patriots draft to their 1993 draft. That year they had a new coach, the No. 1 pick, and a lot of holes. Their first pick was a no-brainer (Drew Bledsoe), and got some additional pieces, including Troy Brown in the 8th round. Their offense didn't improved much, but they shored up their defense a bit. They went 5-11.

In 1994, they had the No. 4 pick, which they used on Willie McGinest. However, Andre Tippett retired, so the defense set back a bit while Bledsoe, Ben Coates, Michael Timpson, and Vincent Brisby led a league leading passing attack to a 10-6 record and a wild card berth.

Due to their success, the Pats had the 23rd pick in 1995. They chose Ty Law. Subsequent picks were Ted Johnson, Curtis Martin, Jimmy Hitchcock, and Dave Wohlabaugh. They had a fairly young roster, so they went through some growing pains, finishing 6-10.

So for the 1996 draft, they drafted Terry Glenn with the No. 7 pick. In later rounds, they also got Lawyer Milloy, Tedy Bruschi, and Heath Irwin. After four drafts, with several key players on both sides of the ball from the draft, they scored the second-most points and finished 14th in scoring defense en route to an 11-5 record, AFC East title, and Super Bowl berth.

My point is this, it took Bill Parcells four drafts to build a contender. He had some pieces from previous teams, some draftees took time to develop in star players and others into serviceable contributors. But the first pick in the four-year combined draft was a QB. This years the Patriots are in the same spot. Take the QB first, and fill some holes later. They'll still suck in 2024, and next year's draft they'll get more valuable players. Since today's NFL requires a mobile QB to stay relevant, I prefer Jayden Daniels. Don't worry about the OL or WRs just yet. They can find the necessary pieces eventually. I don't care if they don't make the Super Bowl in five years, just be competitive. If they're competitive, they'll have a shot of winning it all.

TL;DR: Draft Jayden Daniels at #3.

 

[Cellar-Door]

As long as there is no shortage of badly run franchises and potentially bad scheming/coaching matchup fits/situations coming out of college continuously pumping talented former #1 draft pick QBs back into the dramatically cheaper acquisition cost reclamation project pool?

Yeah, pretty much imo. To the point that within the next 10 years I genuinely believe you'll see a notable amount of teams shifting away from arguably outdated ideologies that are basically not directly evaluating those outside possibility fits as one in the same to to what the draft crop is offering. Or which essentially refuse to acknowledge things like say....Justin Fields being bigger, faster, more athletic, and with better individual ability tape then the draft pool hype prospect that ideology is demanding you prefer over him because that ideogogy ultimately values their "virgin" qualities at the NFL level over anything else.

Which isn't the same as saying you never draft a lottery QB, of course.

So I think there are a couple problems with this....
1. Contract value is a key part of a draftee's value, you have him locked up for 4 years with an option.
2. Fields is an interesting player, but I don't think he has better tape than any of the top 3 guys in this draft in terms of passing, and most "2nd draft" type guys don't have even what Fields had. Also Fields is not gonna be cheap, I bet they get the equivalent of a 2nd plus for 1 year plus option of him.
3. Part of why prospects bust is not knowing what will and won't translate, most busts (true busts) happen because the same concerns from the draft process show up. Now that's not to say you might not get a middle to low end starter down the road out of someone else's miss (Geno? Tannehill?) but most high drafted QBs get multiple chances, and most don't do anything, and none as far as I can tell ever became top QBs.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

As long as there is no shortage of badly run franchises and potentially bad scheming/coaching matchup fits/situations coming out of college continuously pumping talented former #1 draft pick QBs back into the dramatically cheaper acquisition cost reclamation project pool?

Yeah, pretty much imo. To the point that within the next 10 years I genuinely believe you'll see a notable amount of teams shifting away from arguably outdated ideologies that are basically not directly evaluating those outside possibility fits as one in the same to to what the draft crop is offering. Or which essentially refuse to acknowledge things like say....Justin Fields being bigger, faster, more athletic, and with better individual ability tape then the draft pool hype prospect that ideology is demanding you prefer over him because that ideogogy ultimately values their "virgin" qualities at the NFL level over anything else.

Which isn't the same as saying you never draft a lottery QB, of course.

I appreciate the point of view, but honestly, I completely disagree.

Stafford hung around with the Lions for 12 seasons, and didn't play for another team until he was 33 years old. That trade cost the Rams, in addition to Goff, 2 first round picks and a 3rd rounder. The Lions then turned those picks into 6 picks, netting Laporta, Jameson Williams, Melifanwu, Paschal, Jayhmir Gibbs and Brodric Martin.

We've also seen Watson get moved, which I'm sure Cleveland is thrilled about right now.

Teams are not moving on from franchise QB's and won't continue to do so at any real rate. Mahomes/Allen/Burrow/Lamar/Tua/Hurts/Herbert have all gotten second deals from the teams that drafted them. Lawrence will soon, etc.

Guys like Fields shouldn't be in the same breath as these guys, and that's the problem. He's not Stafford or even Goff. Justin Fields is a guy who has shown a little in the NFL, but not enough to pay him 40mil in a year when he's due that money after this season (or you pay him 25mil for 2025 and then let him walk). Cam Newton was bigger, faster and more athletic with an MVP in his closet in 2020, but he couldn't throw a football.

The most valuable asset in the NFL is a franchise QB on their rookie deal. I think giving up assets for a guy like Fields instead of just drafting a guy who could very well be better than him, and having a cost-controlled option is a way better use of resources, and I can't imagine NFL GM"s moving away from that, but who knows.

WR's on the other hand, it's been moving that way for a while.

 

[j44thor]

The big variable to me is whether or not Daniels and to a lesser extent Maye are truly considered franchise QBs or are they considered the best QBs after Williams and therefore are being elevated due to position scarcity. I'm a little more confident in Maye because he is still young and has a productive track record. Daniels came out of nowhere only to explode as a 5th yr SR. It worked for Joe Burrow but more often than not that is a red flag.

The second major red flag I have with Daniels is he plays the position like Cam Newton not Lamar Jackson. There is enough tape of him getting bludgeoned by NCAA LBs that would be near career ending hits at the NFL level. I would hope that can be coached out of him but I'm not sure how much I want to "hope" on the 3rd overall pick.

Maye's biggest red flag is he slightly regressed year over year but I think that can be chocked up to team variance. In an ideal world he would have improved significantly but I'm not holding it against him too much.

I'd need to be significantly more sold on Daniels than I currently am if I'm making the pick at 3. You know what you are getting with Alt/MHJ and the draft is certainly deep enough that a trade down could make a lot of sense.

If Maye is there at 3 I think that is a fairly easy selection because he has the traits of a franchise QB. Daniels I'm at least exploring my options.

 

[BaseballJones]

I'm comparing this year's Patriots draft to their 1993 draft. That year they had a new coach, the No. 1 pick, and a lot of holes. Their first pick was a no-brainer (Drew Bledsoe), and got some additional pieces, including Troy Brown in the 8th round. Their offense didn't improved much, but they shored up their defense a bit. They went 5-11.

In 1994, they had the No. 4 pick, which they used on Willie McGinest. However, Andre Tippett retired, so the defense set back a bit while Bledsoe, Ben Coates, Michael Timpson, and Vincent Brisby led a league leading passing attack to a 10-6 record and a wild card berth.

Due to their success, the Pats had the 23rd pick in 1995. They chose Ty Law. Subsequent picks were Ted Johnson, Curtis Martin, Jimmy Hitchcock, and Dave Wohlabaugh. They had a fairly young roster, so they went through some growing pains, finishing 6-10.

So for the 1996 draft, they drafted Terry Glenn with the No. 7 pick. In later rounds, they also got Lawyer Milloy, Tedy Bruschi, and Heath Irwin. After four drafts, with several key players on both sides of the ball from the draft, they scored the second-most points and finished 14th in scoring defense en route to an 11-5 record, AFC East title, and Super Bowl berth.

My point is this, it took Bill Parcells four drafts to build a contender. He had some pieces from previous teams, some draftees took time to develop in star players and others into serviceable contributors. But the first pick in the four-year combined draft was a QB. This years the Patriots are in the same spot. Take the QB first, and fill some holes later. They'll still suck in 2024, and next year's draft they'll get more valuable players. Since today's NFL requires a mobile QB to stay relevant, I prefer Jayden Daniels. Don't worry about the OL or WRs just yet. They can find the necessary pieces eventually. I don't care if they don't make the Super Bowl in five years, just be competitive. If they're competitive, they'll have a shot of winning it all.

TL;DR: Draft Jayden Daniels at #3.

Geez that 1995 draft is amazing. Law, Johnson, Martin...even Hitchcock was a useful player and Wohlabaugh played 9 years in the NFL and was solid. Two pro bowlers, two other starters, and a useful fifth guy? Holy crap.

 

[MikeM]

Teams are not moving on from franchise QB's and won't continue to do so at any real rate. Mahomes/Allen/Burrow/Lamar/Tua/Hurts/Herbert have all gotten second deals from the teams that drafted them. Lawrence will soon, etc.

I wasn't suggesting anybody moves from ideally wanting a "franchise QB". I'm saying the surrounding evaluation process in the search of finding QB play you are content building your roster around (which I prefer labeling it as over the that rather blanket term in quotes), and the decisions that come out of that in an era of much easier to reach parity checks, are going to see evolving philosophy changes as that outlier NE run of success gets further and further in the rear view mirror.

If you take Daniels at #3 for example because you evalaute him as better head-to-head player talent then both anything being offered to you in the draft, or anything reasonably available outside the draft, you should draft Daniels no doubt. But those head-to-head evaluations of draft guys to anybody available outside the the draft need to be made imo and not passed over as people get to caught up in "I want the next Patrick Mahomes damnit" concept value. If you are talking up the idea that you absolutely need to be passing over a guy like Alt in this draft that ideology should simultaneously be talking up how much you love Maye or Daniels as individual QB prospects.

Another minor qibble I have with the franchise QB term too btw/fwiw. If you take that Philly O-line away from Jalen Hurts, or McDaniels' schemes and Tyreek away from Tua, are they still a "franchise QB"?

 

[Deathofthebambino]

I wasn't suggesting anybody moves from ideally wanting a "franchise QB". I'm saying the surrounding evaluation process in the search of finding QB play you are content building your roster around (which I prefer labeling it as over the that rather blanket term in quotes), and the decisions that come out of that in an era of much easier to reach parity checks, are going to see evolving philosophy changes as that outlier NE run of success gets further and further in the rear view mirror.

If you take Daniels at #3 for example because you evalaute him as better head-to-head player talent then both anything being offered to you in the draft, or anything reasonably available outside the draft, you should draft Daniels no doubt. But those head-to-head evaluations of draft guys to anybody available outside the the draft need to be made imo and not passed over as people get to caught up in "I want the next Patrick Mahomes damnit" concept value. If you are talking up the idea that you absolutely need to be passing over a guy like Alt in this draft that ideology should simultaneously be talking up how much you love Maye or Daniels as individual QB prospects.

Another minor qibble I have with the franchise QB term too btw/fwiw. If you take that Philly O-line away from Jalen Hurts, or McDaniels' schemes and Tyreek away from Tua, are they still a "franchise QB"?

With respect to the end, I don't personally think they're franchise QB's. I've explained around here ad nauseum that QB's can't succeed without help (except unicorns like Brady and Mahomes) and Tua and Hurts are front and center in that analysis. Now, given Hurts signed a record at the time, 255mil deal, he may not be "a franchise QB" but he's most definitely the "franchise QB of the Philadelphia Eagles" and I suspect Tua will be in Miami as well.

For the record, I'm still not sold on Daniels. I've been sold on Maye and Williams for over a year now. If the Pats aren't sold on Daniels, I absolutely don't think they should just take him because they need a QB, and in that situation, I'd be looking to trade out of that pick, but not because we could go out and get a guy like Justin Fields, who we will then have to pay in a year or let him walk. If they go that route, and can't get a guy like Russell Wilson (which would have to assume Williams/Maye go 1/2 before the draft, although you could go get Russ for basically the vet minimum in March after Denver cuts him and still grab Maye/Williams if one of them make it to #3), I'd rather see them draft a project QB later, and spend another year building out the roster, get some high picks again next year, etc and see how the QB market shakes out. No sense taking Daniels at #3 if they aren't sold on him, and you can build a team and then find a QB as San Fran did (it is certainly harder, but maybe we're also a bit jaded given the recent drafts around here under BB, maybe Mayo and crew turn into stud draft evaluators).

 

[NextBigThing8184]

With respect to the end, I don't personally think they're franchise QB's. I've explained around here ad nauseum that QB's can't succeed without help (except unicorns like Brady and Mahomes) and Tua and Hurts are front and center in that analysis. Now, given Hurts signed a record at the time, 255mil deal, he may not be "a franchise QB" but he's most definitely the "franchise QB of the Philadelphia Eagles" and I suspect Tua will be in Miami as well.

For the record, I'm still not sold on Daniels. I've been sold on Maye and Williams for over a year now. If the Pats aren't sold on Daniels, I absolutely don't think they should just take him because they need a QB, and in that situation, I'd be looking to trade out of that pick, but not because we could go out and get a guy like Justin Fields, who we will then have to pay in a year or let him walk. If they go that route, and can't get a guy like Russell Wilson (which would have to assume Williams/Maye go 1/2 before the draft, although you could go get Russ for basically the vet minimum in March after Denver cuts him and still grab Maye/Williams if one of them make it to #3), I'd rather see them draft a project QB later, and spend another year building out the roster, get some high picks again next year, etc and see how the QB market shakes out. No sense taking Daniels at #3 if they aren't sold on him, and you can build a team and then find a QB as San Fran did (it is certainly harder, but maybe we're also a bit jaded given the recent drafts around here under BB, maybe Mayo and crew turn into stud draft evaluators).

SF didn’t really build a team and then find a QB. They aggressively traded for Garoppolo who they thought was their QB (and peak Garoppolo was pretty good on the rare occasion he was healthy). When it became clear Garoppolo was good but perhaps not good enough (or healthy enough), they traded a boatload of picks for Lance.

If you’re not sold on Daniels (or the other guys who will go in the top 40 or wherever), that’s fine. But what happens next year when there’s not a guy you’re sold on? Or the guy you’re sold on goes 7 picks before you? And the year after that? Just keep cycling through retreads or forcing the pick eventually after you’ve aggregated a decent young core?

 

[snowmanny]

Riffing off this question from a mailbag at The Athletic. This seems to be how a lot of the offseason discussion is going:





There seems to be an assumption among many that we'll hit on any non-QB and miss on any QB.

I am in the stand pat and draft a QB camp.

But the argument laid out there that you shouldn’t trade out of #3 because the price you’d have to pay in the future to trade up to #3, or whatever, is so high that you’d never want to make that trade…makes me think that that is also an argument that turning down the draft haul that NEP would get for 3 is the wrong move.

But they need an actual QB, and if they are confident that whoever is there at 3 is an actual QB, that’s your pick.

 

[Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt]

I continue to feel this way: Don't overthink, draft whichever of the three QBs is available at #3. I don't get the sense that Maye and Daniels just feel like "top 3 QBs" because they're what's next after Caleb Williams. From what I'm reading, they're both considered legitimately intriguing, potential franchise QBs. And I wouldn't be stunned if Washington takes Daniels. before Maybe b/c the OC they just inked seems to love that kind of quarterback. That said, Maye is hardly "not mobile," he moves quite well. It's just that Daniels is elite in that area, whereas Maye is simply very good. I'll take either, and happily.

 

[Cellar-Door]

I am in the stand pat and draft a QB camp.

But the argument laid out there that you shouldn’t trade out of #3 because the price you’d have to pay in the future to trade up to #3, or whatever, is so high that you’d never want to make that trade…makes me think that that is also an argument that turning down the draft haul that NEP would get for 3 is the wrong move.

But they need an actual QB, and if they are confident that whoever is there at 3 is an actual QB, that’s your pick.

Well but the trick is... usually teams trade down when they don't need a QB. The haul is worth it if you already have (or might have) a player you think is close or better than the pick.
So last year, CHI had just drafted Fields, he'd shown some real signs, it was considered a mediocre QB class... easy choice to trade down.
2021- MIA trades down, they had just drafted Tua top 5 and he'd had a solid enough half season
2018- IND trades down.... they had Andrew Luck

 

[amfox1]

I am in the stand pat and draft a QB camp.

But the argument laid out there that you shouldn’t trade out of #3 because the price you’d have to pay in the future to trade up to #3, or whatever, is so high that you’d never want to make that trade…makes me think that that is also an argument that turning down the draft haul that NEP would get for 3 is the wrong move.

But they need an actual QB, and if they are confident that whoever is there at 3 is an actual QB, that’s your pick.

I am in the camp to trade down if the value is there (for instance, trading 3 with CHI for 9, Fields, 2025 #1). At a minimum, I'd like ARI to have to pony up at least one of their 3s to switch spots (on the trade chart, 3 (2200 pts) for 4 (1800), 66 (260) and 90 (140) is perfect trade value).

 

[NortheasternPJ]

I am in the camp to trade down if the value is there (for instance, trading 3 with CHI for 9, Fields, 2025 #1). At a minimum, I'd like ARI to have to pony up at least one of their 3s to switch spots (on the trade chart, 3 (2200 pts) for 4 (1800), 66 (260) and 90 (140) is perfect trade value).

Going outside the top 8 to even 9 is my nightmare scenario. You could easily miss out on the Top 3 QBs, Top 3 WRs and the Top 2 Tackles. To me that’s a complete disaster.

 

[NJ_Sox_Fan]

I don’t want to trade down at all. Take the QB. Or take MHJ, and grab another QB, but don’t trade down and don’t let Mac take another snap.