Pats QB Options

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
47,740
Hartford, CT
I suspect those numbers play worse relative to the past 5-10 years of prospects, given the normalization of a higher baseline of athleticism and speed at the position.
 

ZMart100

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2008
3,251
So much of what is important about a QB is non public that I have a hard time forming a firm opinion. If Saban says nobody works harder and the most difficult thing about coaching Jones is avoiding 4 hour conversations about blocking schemes in offenses that haven't been run in 30 years, then trade up to take him. If Saban says Jones does what's asked, take him in the 3rd round. If Saban says Jones gets by on natural ability, take him off the board.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,586
Philadelphia
Maybe it's just a hunch, but I'm pretty confident picks 3-7 arent taking a QB. I think the market is there to trade up if BB wants to.
My sense is that a trade up to 6 or 7 if the right guy is still there is the scenario the Pats should be gaming out.

I don't see the Lions taking a QB. Their new head coach has already basically said in interviews that they want to build a team first and then add the QB on top of that foundation. After the Stafford trade, they have additional first round picks in 2022 and 2023 so they will have the ammo to go get somebody in one of those years if necessary. And they have a big talent deficit in general. Everything points to them looking to add talent up and down the roster in this draft rather than picking a QB who will sit behind Goff. I'm a little bit less certain about the Eagles but I think there is a strong case for them to roll with Hurts and just look to rebuild and add talent as well. They're not a good team and need to get younger.

If I'm BB, my basic approach is that I'm probably not going to pay the price to get into the top four and I'm betting on the Bengals just picking at #5 because that's what that organization always does and they have a ton of incentive to take a high ceiling WR or OT to help Burrow. That should leave at least one of Fields or Lance, with some chance of both, available to whoever is motivated to get up to 6 or 7. Obviously BB may only really like one of those two guys, who may or may not still be on the board. But that's the scenario I'm thinking hardest about.
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
4,993
I really think the Bengals pick should be in play. If their biggest needs are WR and OL, why not trade down for more picks in a draft where WR/OT are the deepest positions? They could still get a top OT prospect like Darrisaw or Vera-Tucker at 15 and plenty of WRs like Bateman or Marshall or Toney could be available for their second rounder. They could use the extra picks from trading down to help rebuild their defense or just add talent via the BPA.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
25,721
Unreal America
Is it a problem for the Pats that the additional first rounder(s) they can add to a deal are likely to be pick 20+ selections? They're sitting at 15 after their worst season in two decades, and they just went wild in the FA market. Even if Cam is every bit the Cam we saw in 2020, they'll still win more than 7 games and be picking deeper in the first round in 2022. Concerned that other teams can not only offer a better first round option this draft to a trade partner, but next year's is likely to be better as well.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
38,853
Hingham, MA
Is it a problem for the Pats that the additional first rounder(s) they can add to a deal are likely to be pick 20+ selections? They're sitting at 15 after their worst season in two decades, and they just went wild in the FA market. Even if Cam is every bit the Cam we saw in 2020, they'll still win more than 7 games and be picking deeper in the first round in 2022. Concerned that other teams can not only offer a better first round option this draft to a trade partner, but next year's is likely to be better as well.
In comparison to other teams trading up, yes, it's an issue. In comparison to historic trades, it doesn't seem to be an issue - KC and New Orleans were examples of (good) teams trading up 17 and 13 picks respectively, giving up a future first and not much else on top of it - so the teams receiving the future first didn't seem too concerned. So if a Carolina or a Denver wants to trade up, there is no way the Pats can match that value. But would Carolina really give up #8 and a future first to move up only 3 spots? I highly doubt that. So then the question becomes something like, is #8 + #39 this year more valuable than #15 + Pats 2022 first rounder (likely low 20s)? That becomes more of a subjective question of how the receiving team would view the picks.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,521
So much of what is important about a QB is non public that I have a hard time forming a firm opinion. If Saban says nobody works harder and the most difficult thing about coaching Jones is avoiding 4 hour conversations about blocking schemes in offenses that haven't been run in 30 years, then trade up to take him. If Saban says Jones does what's asked, take him in the 3rd round. If Saban says Jones gets by on natural ability, take him off the board.
See this is nonsense. I get that we think about "smart QBs" and "hard workers" as good.... but the thing is, you still need talent. A guy without the tools is a future coach not a future NFL starting QB. Kellen Moore worked real hard, he was smart, he loved talking offense.... he's a pretty solid OC now because he didn't have the tools to be an NFL QB.

You may take guys off your board or move them down if they have tons of talent but don't work hard. Working hard doesn't move you up the board, most guys work incredibly hard. The ones with good tools become great, the ones with bad tool don't.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
25,721
Unreal America
In comparison to other teams trading up, yes, it's an issue. In comparison to historic trades, it doesn't seem to be an issue - KC and New Orleans were examples of (good) teams trading up 17 and 13 picks respectively, giving up a future first and not much else on top of it - so the teams receiving the future first didn't seem too concerned. So if a Carolina or a Denver wants to trade up, there is no way the Pats can match that value. But would Carolina really give up #8 and a future first to move up only 3 spots? I highly doubt that. So then the question becomes something like, is #8 + #39 this year more valuable than #15 + Pats 2022 first rounder (likely low 20s)? That becomes more of a subjective question of how the receiving team would view the picks.
The historic context is helpful, thanks!
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
See this is nonsense. I get that we think about "smart QBs" and "hard workers" as good.... but the thing is, you still need talent. A guy without the tools is a future coach not a future NFL starting QB. Kellen Moore worked real hard, he was smart, he loved talking offense.... he's a pretty solid OC now because he didn't have the tools to be an NFL QB.

You may take guys off your board or move them down if they have tons of talent but don't work hard. Working hard doesn't move you up the board, most guys work incredibly hard. The ones with good tools become great, the ones with bad tool don't.
I think both of you are wrong, but zmart is way closer to being right.

It's not the tools that matter, at least if you're talking about a QBs arm and athletic ability. At some extreme--like Kellen Moree--it obviously could. And if the tools are unbelievable (Favre Rogers Mahomes) it helps. But Brady, Manning and Brees don't have great tools.

The key is how well does a QB process information. How well does the QB read, often subconciously, how a safety is moving and make a decision in a faction of a second to go to a second or third read. How often does the QB make the often hard choice of just taking the checkdown for seven on third and twelve instead of hanging in there a little too long and taking a sack or getting nothing. Does the QB notice something subtle in his WR's hips and realizes he's handling the option route exactly how the QB expects--and the DB doesn't know? It's the ability to make those decisions dozens of times a game that separate Qbs of a certain physical ability from each other. So it's not quite hard work (although hard work helps) but if Saban said absolutely he's like a coach on the field he processes whats going on like a six year NFL starter, then I'd take Mac Jones very high.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,521
I think both of you are wrong, but zmart is way closer to being right.

It's not the tools that matter, at least if you're talking about a QBs arm and athletic ability. At some extreme--like Kellen Moree--it obviously could. And if the tools are unbelievable (Favre Rogers Mahomes) it helps. But Brady, Manning and Brees don't have great tools.

The key is how well does a QB process information. How well does the QB read, often subconciously, how a safety is moving and make a decision in a faction of a second to go to a second or third read. How often does the QB make the often hard choice of just taking the checkdown for seven on third and twelve instead of hanging in there a little too long and taking a sack or getting nothing. Does the QB notice something subtle in his WR's hips and realizes he's handling the option route exactly how the QB expects--and the DB doesn't know? It's the ability to make those decisions dozens of times a game that separate Qbs of a certain physical ability from each other. So it's not quite hard work (although hard work helps) but if Saban said absolutely he's like a coach on the field he processes whats going on like a six year NFL starter, then I'd take Mac Jones very high.
I disagree with this. Manning had a great arm, Brady had a good arm... Brees.. ok maybe? Brady and Brees also had an uncanny ability to navigate a pocket, and all 3 had lightning releases.
But all those guys could make tight window throws, and that had nothing to do with work ethic, or loving to talk offense. It had to do with pinpoint accuracy, a good enough arm to fit the window, and yes, great field vision. But field vision isn't being a hard worker, or loving to talk blocking schemes, it's a tool of it's own.

My point was, the "student of a game, nobody works harder, would talk about arcana for hours" stuff is the NFL equivalent of "gym rat" in basketball, it's something people say to justify why they like a guy who doesn't have the tools you look for. Those are things that make you a good coach or student manager, they aren't indicators that you can play QB in the NFL. If Mac Jones had bad mobility, a mediocre to bad arm, but he had shown on the field an ability to dominate on tight window throws, or under signifcant pressure... sure, I'd be all for saying he had the tools to make it in the NFL because of superior technical/mental abilites that might offset his physical shortcomings.
Unfortunately, we don't really have evidence of that. Instead what we have is a guy who is great at pitching to wide open guys under no pressure. That doesn't happen in the NFL, if you can't excel at tight window passing in college, on a dominant team, you aren't going to magically get better at it in the NFL because you and Bill talk about the veer.
 

ZMart100

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2008
3,251
See this is nonsense. I get that we think about "smart QBs" and "hard workers" as good.... but the thing is, you still need talent. A guy without the tools is a future coach not a future NFL starting QB. Kellen Moore worked real hard, he was smart, he loved talking offense.... he's a pretty solid OC now because he didn't have the tools to be an NFL QB.

You may take guys off your board or move them down if they have tons of talent but don't work hard. Working hard doesn't move you up the board, most guys work incredibly hard. The ones with good tools become great, the ones with bad tool don't.
I think Jones passes the talent threshold. He may not a Jamarcus Russell arm, but he can throw well enough. Non public information wouldn't be enough to get Ian Book onto my first round list, for example.

I don't know that most guys work incredibly hard. We hear about standouts. QB is not like some other positions where good tools are almost enough.

I disagree with this. Manning had a great arm, Brady had a good arm... Brees.. ok maybe? Brady and Brees also had an uncanny ability to navigate a pocket, and all 3 had lightning releases.
But all those guys could make tight window throws, and that had nothing to do with work ethic, or loving to talk offense. It had to do with pinpoint accuracy, a good enough arm to fit the window, and yes, great field vision. But field vision isn't being a hard worker, or loving to talk blocking schemes, it's a tool of it's own.

My point was, the "student of a game, nobody works harder, would talk about arcana for hours" stuff is the NFL equivalent of "gym rat" in basketball, it's something people say to justify why they like a guy who doesn't have the tools you look for. Those are things that make you a good coach or student manager, they aren't indicators that you can play QB in the NFL. If Mac Jones had bad mobility, a mediocre to bad arm, but he had shown on the field an ability to dominate on tight window throws, or under signifcant pressure... sure, I'd be all for saying he had the tools to make it in the NFL because of superior technical/mental abilites that might offset his physical shortcomings.
Unfortunately, we don't really have evidence of that. Instead what we have is a guy who is great at pitching to wide open guys under no pressure. That doesn't happen in the NFL, if you can't excel at tight window passing in college, on a dominant team, you aren't going to magically get better at it in the NFL because you and Bill talk about the veer.
Most of what we hear about "gym rats" etc are from the talking heads. A report from someone who has actually worked with the player and can be trusted to give a good assessment is much more valuable.

If you think Jones doesn't have enough ability, then are you arguing that he shouldn't be drafted at all?
 

Zososoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2009
9,375
South of North
I think this is starting to get at the crux of the issue: of the teams in the top 10 who presumably don't need/want to pick a QB, which ones are likely to trade down to a team who wants a QB?
  1. Jax -- definitely taking a QB and 99.5% sure that will be Lawrence.
  2. NYJ -- 99% sure they will take a QB, and probably Wilson. But it's the Jets so who knows?
  3. MIA -- The first big question mark. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised by any of the three options (take a QB, trade down, or sit tight and pick BPA). So I'll say 33% for each of the three options.
  4. ATL -- I can't believe they will take a QB, having just extended Ryan and so many holes to fill. The first obvious trade partner.
  5. CIN -- No way they take a QB. Sewell is a perfect fit. I doubt they trade down, but I could see the argument that they should. Best case, they move down a handful of slots and Sewell is still sitting there. Worst case, they miss out on Sewell and end up with another excellent player. If I were CIN, I would look to trade down, but stay in the top 10.
  6. PHI -- Another big question mark. I would say 25% chance they go QB; 75% they go BPA. I doubt they trade down, and no more than a couple spots.
  7. DET -- Another non-QB pick. Possible trade target.
  8. CAR -- The first trade UP competition. They could use a QB. They don't have far to move to get to 3 or 4 or even 7.
  9. DEN -- More trade UP competition. They also could use a QB and don't have far to move to get to 3 or 4 or even 7. I wonder if DET might end up trying to pit CAR and DEN against each other for 7, especially if 3 or 4 of the big 5 are gone in the first 6 picks.
  10. DAL -- Another non-QB pick.
  11. NYG -- Another non-QB pick.
  12. SF -- Probably another non-QB pick as it currently stands.
  13. LAC -- Another non-QB pick.
  14. MIN -- Another non-QB pick.
So my sense is that there are four to six teams ahead of the Pats who are more than likely to seek out a QB, and two of them (CAR and DEN) are going to be fairly certain to take QBs. So if I am BB and want one of the QBs, I'm calling ATL, CIN, PHI and DET to see what it will take to get their picks. But I also might be calling DAL and NYG to see about acquiring one of those picks first, in order to use that to leapfrog up to the 4-7 range, because if I am ATL, CIN, PHI or DET, I'd be more inclined to trade for 10 or 11 than 15.

Using the Rich Hill trade value chart:
NE trades 15 + 96 + 139 (value = 315+39+17=371) to DAL for 10 (tv=369)
Then trades 10 + 46 (tv = 369+128=497) to ATL for 4 (tv=491).

It's the same cost to NE as trading 15 + 46 + 96 + 139 directly to ATL, but I wonder if ATL might be happier with the former option (10+46).
First, I like the proposed strategy of moving up incrementally in 2 separate transactions. Of course it relies on making a good deal in the first transaction in a vacuum to make sense (to account for the possibility that the second transaction doesn't go through). It also gives the Pats a chance to keep competitors guessing as to their motives--I trust BB to stay a course more than anyone else other than the Ravens, Steelers, and Seahawks (teams that always seem to draft targets the Pats are associated with or ones that I like anyway).

However, I disagree on a few of your assessments of other teams' priorities. I think the chances of the Fins taking a QB are lower than 33%. After some back in forth in this thread earlier (or maybe another thread in BbtL), I think the chances of PHI going QB are greater than 25%. Lastly, I get the gut feeling that NYG may go QB. Sure they have a lot invested in Jones, but if they're not sure he's the guy and there's a good prospect available, they may consider making that move.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,858
Santa Monica, CA
Mac Jones does nothing for me, and I’m not taking a QB at 15 out of a general fear that I’ll never get another chance. That’s not true, and I don’t think Jones is promising enough to warrant that kind of investment. I meant what’s his realistic upper percentile projection even if he succeeds? Andy Dalton? That’s a successful player, of course, but not exciting when his outcome could easily be backup/low level starter rather than mid-level starter when in his prime.

I’m all for taking a shot at a QB, but not him at that pick.
Totally agree with this. And that's without getting into what they'd be passing up on the board to take him at 15.

I don't believe the Patriots will chase a position that hard, even QB and even this year.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
Totally agree with this. And that's without getting into what they'd be passing up on the board to take him at 15.

I don't believe the Patriots will chase a position that hard, even QB and even this year.
Sony Michel says hi. As does Harry. The pats absolutely chase position players a little--which I don't think is a mistake. (But is a particular challenge at QB).

I'm fine passing on Mac Jones--he seems decent but not great and it's hard to imagine what the rest of the roster has to look like if you want to beat Mahomes with Jones as your QB.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,858
Santa Monica, CA
My sense is that a trade up to 6 or 7 if the right guy is still there is the scenario the Pats should be gaming out.

I don't see the Lions taking a QB. Their new head coach has already basically said in interviews that they want to build a team first and then add the QB on top of that foundation. After the Stafford trade, they have additional first round picks in 2022 and 2023 so they will have the ammo to go get somebody in one of those years if necessary. And they have a big talent deficit in general. Everything points to them looking to add talent up and down the roster in this draft rather than picking a QB who will sit behind Goff. I'm a little bit less certain about the Eagles but I think there is a strong case for them to roll with Hurts and just look to rebuild and add talent as well. They're not a good team and need to get younger.

If I'm BB, my basic approach is that I'm probably not going to pay the price to get into the top four and I'm betting on the Bengals just picking at #5 because that's what that organization always does and they have a ton of incentive to take a high ceiling WR or OT to help Burrow. That should leave at least one of Fields or Lance, with some chance of both, available to whoever is motivated to get up to 6 or 7. Obviously BB may only really like one of those two guys, who may or may not still be on the board. But that's the scenario I'm thinking hardest about.
This sounds right, but you make the key point - IF the right guy has slipped to 6 or 7.

There's no way they would/should give up draft equity to move up and take whoever happens to be left at #6. That could very likely be the guy Belichick considers the 4th best quarterback in the draft.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
38,853
Hingham, MA
This sounds right, but you make the key point - IF the right guy has slipped to 6 or 7.

There's no way they would/should give up draft equity to move up and take whoever happens to be left at #6. That could very likely be the guy Belichick considers the 4th best quarterback in the draft.
These things can (maybe) both be true: it could be the 4th best QB, even in BB's eyes, but that QB still might be good enough to warrant a selection at 6 or 7. In other words, I don't think position ranking matters as much as draft grade does. That said, we have zero idea how the Pats are either grading or ranking any of these guys.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
These things can (maybe) both be true: it could be the 4th best QB, even in BB's eyes, but that QB still might be good enough to warrant a selection at 6 or 7. In other words, I don't think position ranking matters as much as draft grade does. That said, we have zero idea how the Pats are either grading or ranking any of these guys.
I would take that one step further to say "Neither position ranking nor draft grade matter to BB, only future projection." In other words, if Bill sees a path to NFL success with the Patriots, he'll take a player, regardless of draft grade. It's why we see so many supposed "reaches" over the years. Some, like Mankins or Vollmer, are home runs; others like Wilson or Richards, are strikeouts. (Well, TBH, Wilson was likely a broken-bat single.)
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
16,832
I think Jones passes the talent threshold. He may not a Jamarcus Russell arm, but he can throw well enough. Non public information wouldn't be enough to get Ian Book onto my first round list, for example.

I don't know that most guys work incredibly hard. We hear about standouts. QB is not like some other positions where good tools are almost enough.


Most of what we hear about "gym rats" etc are from the talking heads. A report from someone who has actually worked with the player and can be trusted to give a good assessment is much more valuable.

If you think Jones doesn't have enough ability, then are you arguing that he shouldn't be drafted at all?
I don't think it's like a bright line "he doesn't have enough skill he can't play in the NFL". It's a very multidimensional spectrum that leads to a likely range of outcomes.

All the available information indicates that Sark was very impressed by Mac's work ethic & ability to pick up an offense.

He just has an average arm, below average mobility, average field processing & benefitted from an extremely advantageous offensive system & skill. Idk, I just don't think he's likely to ever be an above average starter. 2nd or 3rd round seems fine.

Just watched that video above & it's fine & all, but is literally a highlight video with commentary rather than an actual balanced look at any negative plays & flaws.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
16,832
What makes you say that he has "average field processing"? What are you basing that on?
Other scouting I've seen & some statistical comparisons to Burrow that show that Burrow is all time elite at processing (just ahead of Rodgers/Marino).

Average is all completely arbitrary, though. Like what does that even mean? I didn't exactly phrase that particularly artfully lol.

Average for an NFL starting QB is still quite good. I just don't see any indication that it's an elite skill that would make up for his lack of elite arm strength/mobility/height/etc.

If the Patriots draft him, I hope I'm wrong, & if anyone else drafts him I hope I'm right :)
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
16,832
Is kind of amazing that Pat Mahomes had the exact same 40 time as Peyton Manning (4.80).
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,788
Define lower round picks. 46 + 96 doesn't even get them to 28 per the Hill value chart. 28 = 209, 46 = 128, 96 = 39, 120 = 25. That adds up to 192 and wouldn't even be enough per the value chart.

Edit 139 is worth 17, that would make it even. 46 + 96 + 120 + 139 for 28 is a lot to give up, but beyond that, it creates a huge gap in the draft from 28 all the way to 122, then another huge gap to 177. And if you give up 15 + 28 + another pick (probably 122) for the 5th pick, then you go all the way from the 5th pick to 177 without a pick. There is no - zero - chance BB would do something like that.
You may want to re-read his post. Especially the bolded parts

.Matt_Ryan Valentines.png
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,521
This discussion led me to wonder about Tom Brady's scouting report coming out of Michigan. That led me to find this article, which is perhaps worth reading in the current context:

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/10/nfl-patriots-tom-brady-draft-college-michigan-scouting-report
One thing I see in those clips... Brady had great feet in college, he had a quick release and a solid arm. In the context of Mac Jones for example, Brady's footwork blows Jones away, the release is quicker, the decisions are faster, the arm looks a bit better.

The other thing I see.... the difference a few decades make. No guys who spent 3 years at top college programs look like that anymore, they have been with nutritionists and pro lifting regimines since they hit campus.

Brady was a case of underdeveloped strength clouding some clear skills.
 

Bowser

New Member
Sep 27, 2019
440
One thing I see in those clips... Brady had great feet in college, he had a quick release and a solid arm. In the context of Mac Jones for example, Brady's footwork blows Jones away, the release is quicker, the decisions are faster, the arm looks a bit better.
To me Brady looks to have a bit better footwork, but I wouldn't say it blows Jones' away. I do agree that Brady's arm is stronger, but overall they strike me as pretty similar prospects all things considered -- arm strength, accuracy, manipulating defenders, pocket mobility, athleticism, competitiveness, etc.

Brady's last two years at Michigan:

Year G Cmp Att Pct Y/A AY/A TD Int Rate
1998 12 200 323 61.9 7.5 7.0 14 10 133.1
1999 11 180 295 61.0 7.5 7.7 16 6 138.0

And Jones':

Year G Cmp Att Pct Y/A AY/A TD Int Rate
2019 11 97 141 68.8 10.7 11.7 14 3 186.8
2020 13 311 402 77.4 11.2 12.8 41 4 203.1

Also, small sample size and all, but the video posted by BaseballJones shows Mac Jones making several pinpoint passes while getting knocked on his ass. I didn't see a guy hitting wide open receivers from a clean pocket, as has been frequently said in this forum. OK, sure, maybe that accurately describes 90% of his college tape, but he seems like a guy who can make plays under duress when needed.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,317
To your point, a number of those throws were to a guy who was pretty tightly covered and he put it on a dime where only his receiver could get it. I dunno... he sure looks to me like a guy who can really pass the ball.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
16,832
Eagles sign Flacco - 1 year with $3.5m guaranteed plus up to $4m in incentives. Seems to make it even less likely they go QB in the 1st.

View: https://twitter.com/JFowlerESPN/status/1374486635807580165?s=20


Idk, I'm going to stop bashing Mac but what I see on those highlight plays is a situation where the QB can put the ball almost anywhere because he has an elite receiver in man coverage with no help who will make him look good if the pass is anywhere in the vicinity.
 

Zososoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2009
9,375
South of North
Eagles sign Flacco - 1 year with $3.5m guaranteed plus up to $4m in incentives. Seems to make it even less likely they go QB in the 1st.

View: https://twitter.com/JFowlerESPN/status/1374486635807580165?s=20


Idk, I'm going to stop bashing Mac but what I see on those highlight plays is a situation where the QB can put the ball almost anywhere because he has an elite receiver in man coverage with no help who will make him look good if the pass is anywhere in the vicinity.
Agreed, this is a positive development. Then again, it's the Iggles [shrug].
 

Jeff Van GULLY

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
4,049
I’m having a hard time envisioning any of the top 4 QB’s still being there after pick 6. I think any qb needy team will select (JAX, NYJ, ATL {yes I think they could go qb}) or trade up (DEN, CAR, SF). Those teams who don’t need a qb can afford to trade down (MIA, CIN).

The first round order seems conducive to them all going very early.
 

brendan f

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2019
319
I’m having a hard time envisioning any of the top 4 QB’s still being there after pick 6. I think any qb needy team will select (JAX, NYJ, ATL {yes I think they could go qb}) or trade up (DEN, CAR, SF). Those teams who don’t need a qb can afford to trade down (MIA, CIN).

The first round order seems conducive to them all going very early.
I don't think this is true. Denver is not showing signs it will take a QB.
https://www.si.com/nfl/broncos/news/woody-paige-george-patons-2021-denver-broncos-drew-lock-will-be-qb
https://nypost.com/2021/03/05/broncos-send-a-pretty-strong-warning-to-drew-lock/
I think it's more likely they bring in a veteran or draft a QB later in the draft to "push" Lock.

I'm not sure why Atlanta would take a QB. With the money they gave Ryan, why pay another chunk of cash for a guy to sit on the bench for a few years?
Carolina will likely take one. SF is a real wild card. Again, they'd be in a position paying a lot of money for a QB watching JG play for another couple of years. I think it's more likely they ride this year out and consider drafting one next year. If JG stinks and the team stinks, they'd get another shot. Detroit and Philly, as others have noted, don't seem to be indicating they will take a QB.
So I think we can safely say Jacksonville, Jets, and Carolina, but that MIGHT be it. In other words, the Patriots are pretty well positioned to draft a meaningful quarterback.
 
Last edited:

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,060
Mansfield MA
I don't think this is true. Denver is not showing signs it will take a QB.
https://www.si.com/nfl/broncos/news/woody-paige-george-patons-2021-denver-broncos-drew-lock-will-be-qb
https://nypost.com/2021/03/05/broncos-send-a-pretty-strong-warning-to-drew-lock/
I think it's more likely they bring in a veteran or draft a QB later in the draft to "push" Lock.

I'm not sure why Atlanta would take a QB. With the money they gave Ryan, why pay another chunk of cash for a guy to sit on the bench for a few years?
Carolina will likely take one. SF is a real wild card. Again, they'd be in a position paying a lot of money for a QB watching JG play for another couple of years. I think it's more likely they ride this year out and consider drafting one next year. If JG stinks and the team stinks, they'd get another shot. Detroit and Philly, as others have noted, don't seem to be indicating they will take a QB.
So I think we can safely say Jacksonville, Jets, and Carolina, but that MIGHT be it. In other words, the Patriots are pretty well positioned to draft a meaningful quarterback.
The lede on that second article is literally "Drew Lock is no lock to remain the Denver Broncos’ starting quarterback in 2021."

SF isn't married to Jimmy G at all in terms of his contract. Ryan's contract is a mess but might be tradeable starting next year; that wouldn't shock me, though I do think it would be surprising with a rookie GM.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2007
17,400
Washington
I'm not sure why Atlanta would take a QB. With the money they gave Ryan, why pay another chunk of cash for a guy to sit on the bench for a few years?
Atlanta may not, but taking a young QB to develop for a year or two before throwing them into a starting role is a decent play. Maybe even more so if they aren't getting one of the top two QB talents on the board and draft less of a sure thing.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,586
Philadelphia
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/atlanta-falcons/matt-ryan-3983/

They just re-structured him so they don't really have a reasonable out next year.
I also don't really see Matt Ryan doing the team a solid by agreeing to a restructure and not seeking a trade without some assurance that they're actually going to try to improve next year through FA and the draft, rather than spending by far their most valuable asset on his successor. I'm pretty sure when he talked with the Falcons top brass about different scenarios (trade, restructure) they agreed broadly on a plan for the team.

Restructuring Ryan to kick all this money forward into the future just to basically punt on this year anyway, alienating your franchise player in the process, also doesn't make much sense from the team's perspective.

Everything points to them either drafting best non-QB available or trading the pick.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,521
Atlanta may not, but taking a young QB to develop for a year or two before throwing them into a starting role is a decent play. Maybe even more so if they aren't getting one of the top two QB talents on the board and draft less of a sure thing.
I can't see them throwing a top 5 pick at a QB who doesn't have a path to start for 2 years. They seem a prime candidate to trade down. They have Ryan and an elite WR nearing the end of their window, but still very good. Fix the line and defense and they are a playoff team. They badly undershot expected W/L last year, that was more a 7-9 or 8=8 type team than a 4-12 one, they had some epicly improbable losses.
 

brendan f

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2019
319
The lede on that second article is literally "Drew Lock is no lock to remain the Denver Broncos’ starting quarterback in 2021."
That was the NY Post being the NY Post. Did you read the quotes from the article? Both the coach and GM said they want to bring in "competition" for Lock, not try to replace him. It doesn't mean they won't draft a quarterback at nine, but--again--it sounds unlikely.
 

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
6,629
CT
I can't see them throwing a top 5 pick at a QB who doesn't have a path to start for 2 years. They seem a prime candidate to trade down. They have Ryan and an elite WR nearing the end of their window, but still very good. Fix the line and defense and they are a playoff team. They badly undershot expected W/L last year, that was more a 7-9 or 8=8 type team than a 4-12 one, they had some epicly improbable losses.
In the Falcons case, they’re in an interesting spot regarding their present and what the outlook looks like for the next few seasons.

I would argue that taking a QB this year makes a lot more sense because of what you said. Their current roster is nearing the end of its rope. If they’re a .500 or better team this year, A.) the QB class looks to be significantly worse next year, and B.) they’re likely out of striking range in case one or two of them look legit.

So if you pass on QB, you’re likely committing to Matt Ryan for the next two seasons minimum and might have to give up significant assets to trade into a position that they’re already in this year.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
47,740
Hartford, CT
In the Falcons case, they’re in an interesting spot regarding their present and what the outlook looks like for the next few seasons.

I would argue that taking a QB this year makes a lot more sense because of what you said. Their current roster is nearing the end of its rope. If they’re a .500 or better team this year, A.) the QB class looks to be significantly worse next year, and B.) they’re likely out of striking range in case one or two of them look legit.

So if you pass on QB, you’re likely committing to Matt Ryan for the next two seasons minimum and might have to give up significant assets to trade into a position that they’re already in this year.
They’ll likely burn two years of the QB’s rookie deal if they take one given the cap implications of the recent restructuring of Ryan’s contract. What are the odds Ryan gets beat out in year 2 by a Fields or Lance? Ryan is healthy and still very good, and as a pocket passer there’s no reason to think the cliff is necessarily coming by age 37.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2007
17,400
Washington
In the Falcons case, they’re in an interesting spot regarding their present and what the outlook looks like for the next few seasons.

I would argue that taking a QB this year makes a lot more sense because of what you said. Their current roster is nearing the end of its rope. If they’re a .500 or better team this year, A.) the QB class looks to be significantly worse next year, and B.) they’re likely out of striking range in case one or two of them look legit.

So if you pass on QB, you’re likely committing to Matt Ryan for the next two seasons minimum and might have to give up significant assets to trade into a position that they’re already in this year.
Yeah, pretty much. Having a guy sit for 2 years is not ideal, but that time can still be well spent to make them successful when they do start. Of course a lot depends on the internal assessments of the candidates.

Wandering the NFL wilderness without a solid QB is rough. Better to move a little early than a little late, I think. Assuming you see something who you really think could be "the guy".
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
16,832
I don't think the Falcons make that restructure if they intend to draft a QB early.

Much more likely they trade back to a team that does want a QB try & fill out some of their roster holes.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2007
17,400
Washington
They’ll likely burn two years of the QB’s rookie deal if they take one given the cap implications of the recent restructuring of Ryan’s contract. What are the odds Ryan gets beat out in year 2 by a Fields or Lance? Ryan is healthy and still very good, and as a pocket passer there’s no reason to think the cliff is necessarily coming by age 37.
Is starting a rookie QB in year 1 preferable? I don't think so. I see it more like burning one year of the QB's rookie deal. Not ideal, but maybe better than the alternative if next year's crop is weaker and Atlanta is a little too good to get a low pick.
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
15,300
UWS, NYC
They’ll likely burn two years of the QB’s rookie deal if they take one given the cap implications of the recent restructuring of Ryan’s contract. What are the odds Ryan gets beat out in year 2 by a Fields or Lance? Ryan is healthy and still very good, and as a pocket passer there’s no reason to think the cliff is necessarily coming by age 37.
This is where I am too. If you draft a QB in the top 10, you certainly want him playing in Year 2.

South of that (but I think really picks 20+) you might be able to tolerate waiting for Year 3 — and even then, only if you’re a really good team with a too shelf QB (like the Packers last year).

I think the Falcons pick gets traded, likely to Carolina, NE, maybe SF.

I also don’t see Mac Jones getting past the Saints, at worst.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
47,740
Hartford, CT
Is starting a rookie QB in year 1 preferable? I don't think so. I see it more like burning one year of the QB's rookie deal. Not ideal, but maybe better than the alternative if next year's crop is weaker and Atlanta is a little too good to get a low pick.
And I’m not sure why I’m even granting Ryan’s window is two years in my prior post.

My point was that you’re financially committed to Ryan for two years....but he may still be your best QB in year three because he’s really good and as we know the really good pocket QB are playing well into their late 30s now.

It wouldn’t be a horrible pick if they took a QB they loved at 4, but I’m not seeing it as the likely outcome.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2007
17,400
Washington
It wouldn’t be a horrible pick if they took a QB they loved at 4, but I’m not seeing it as the likely outcome.
I don't consider it a likely outcome either, just a reasonable one. I agree that if Atlanta sees Ryan as their QB three years from now, it is much less likely. They don't want to Jimmy G-up a future transition.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
47,740
Hartford, CT
I don't consider it a likely outcome either, just a reasonable one. I agree that if Atlanta sees Ryan as their QB three years from now, it is much less likely. They don't want to Jimmy G-up a future transition.
Yeah, although to your point that it wouldn’t be unreasonable, as hedging against your late 30s QB declining is a smart play in theory. And if the incumbent is still chugging along, great, you can move the backup for an asset. I bet the Pats do not regret drafting Jimmy G (although he was about fifty picks later than the pick we are talking about).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.