What do you want Pats to do with #3?

[Deathofthebambino]

Beyond your first two sentences, you also said there’s “always diamonds” after providing a list of guys taken outside of the top part of the draft. My only point was that it’s statistically improbable for the Pats to actually find a stud WR beyond the early first because the number of those guys is tiny in relation to the number of guys actually selected.

Also not sure about crediting elite WR play to the development of Goff (who had Kupp) or Purdy (who has only ever had good receivers so who knows if he could have made “huge strides” without them) but to be clear I certainly agree with the assertion that an elite WR is a great QB enhancer and can elevate a QB’s play and that the Pats need to take a lot more bites at the proverbial apple.

It's statistically less probable to find a stud (insert position here) later in the draft than it is in the early first. Wide receiver is however, one of the few which has a much higher hit rate later in the draft, especially when compared to QB. Thats the point I was making vis a vis folks who want to take MHJ at #3 over a QB. And unlike QB, you need more than one on a roster. Maybe you don't find the next AJ Brown or Jefferson, but there's a metric ton of guys like McLaurin and Tyler Lockett, who arent top the league talents, that get drafted in later rounds that turn into important pieces on an offense as well.

The reality is the vast majority of the top 50 wide receivers are not taken in the top 15-20 of the draft. Thats not the case with QB. That's why I wouldn't take MHJ over a QB at 3. You take a QB or trade down. It's really the only options on the table, IMO.

 

[GrandSlamPozo]

Draft MHJ and sign Cousins. The success rate on QBs at the top of the draft in recent years is pretty low and some of the criticisms I've read about the top 3 QB prospects don't fill me with much confidence. I'd rather go with a proven guy even if it's a short term solution.

 

[Cellar-Door]

Draft MHJ and sign Cousins. The success rate on QBs at the top of the draft in recent years is pretty low and some of the criticisms I've read about the top 3 QB prospects don't fill me with much confidence. I'd rather go with a proven guy even if it's a short term solution.

There is zero chance Cousins has even the slightest interest in New England.

 

[Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt]

Why would a team YEARS away from competing for a championship sign a 34-year old QB coming off major surgery just to win 10 games and get bounced while trying to rebuild?

On another topic, I don't think the Patriots should draft an edge before day 3 of the draft because this FA class of pass rushers is LOADED and I suspect a significant part of the cash-burning is going to flow in the direction of Josh Allen, Brian Burns, Danielle Hunter, etc...

 

[Justthetippett]

Why would a team YEARS away from competing for a championship sign a 34-year old QB coming off major surgery just to win 10 games and get bounced while trying to rebuild?

On another topic, I don't think the Patriots should draft an edge before day 3 of the draft because this FA class of pass rushers is LOADED and I suspect a significant part of the cash-burning is going to flow in the direction of Josh Allen, Brian Burns, Danielle Hunter, etc...

He'll be 36 by opening day. And the lack of interest should be mutual.

Agree on the edges. I would like to see them spend almost all of their high picks on offense and see if they can't do a few under the radar things in FA on defense. Although signing Burns and cutting Mac would be fun.

 

[Old Fart Tree]

Honestly, the more I think about this the more I'd like to see either a trade up for the can't miss guy or trade down for a bounty and sign Wilson after Denver's forced to release him.

oh, no.

He’s… no. Just no.

 

[Dogman]

Draft MHJ and sign Cousins. The success rate on QBs at the top of the draft in recent years is pretty low and some of the criticisms I've read about the top 3 QB prospects don't fill me with much confidence. I'd rather go with a proven guy even if it's a short term solution.

Sign Cousins and take $40MM in the cap space available? Nevermind that he is coming off a a torn Achilles and won't be ready to play opening day. Nevermind that he isn't nearly as proven as you say, the guy has won nothing and has struggled to win nothing while actually being a mediocre player for his entire career. Even with top tier WR, he isn't anything close to what NE wants.

I just don't understand why people here want to sign Cousins or Brisset or anyone who have literally won nothing and have very mediocre stat lines to back it up.

At least Russ Wilson has won something and done so with less than big name and stat talent.

 

[Reverend]

Sign Cousins and take $40MM in the cap space available? Nevermind that he is coming off a a torn Achilles and won't be ready to play opening day. Nevermind that he isn't nearly as proven as you say, the guy has won nothing and has struggled to win nothing while actually being a mediocre player for his entire career. Even with top tier WR, he isn't anything close to what NE wants.

I just don't understand why people here want to sign Cousins or Brisset or anyone who have literally won nothing and have very mediocre stat lines to back it up.

At least Russ Wilson has won something and done so with less than big name and stat talent.

I think what we’re seeing is a massive selection effect with respect to great WRs. Like, almost every time you see a great WR, they are something awesome and looking grand doing it.

But you only see them on screen at all if a whole bunch of other stuff already went right. Sure, we see them drop some balls. But we usually don’t see all the times they didn’t get separation or ran the wrong routes, yeah?

I hope you’re sitting down for this truth bomb: More than a third of the passes Tom Brady threw were incompletions. Like almost 36%!!!! Yuck.

 

[Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt]

Sign Cousins and take $40MM in the cap space available? Nevermind that he is coming off a a torn Achilles and won't be ready to play opening day. Nevermind that he isn't nearly as proven as you say, the guy has won nothing and has struggled to win nothing while actually being a mediocre player for his entire career. Even with top tier WR, he isn't anything close to what NE wants.

I just don't understand why people here want to sign Cousins or Brisset or anyone who have literally won nothing and have very mediocre stat lines to back it up.

At least Russ Wilson has won something and done so with less than big name and stat talent.

Agree on Cousins, but the Brissett thing is clearly different. He would be a bridge QB that we sign to mentor a rookie like Maye or Daniels. For that I think he's ideal. And I don't think any actual Patriots fan is suggesting they sign Brissett as our QB1 for the next four years. Like...literally NOBODY here thinks that.

 

[ElTiante]

Trade down & grab MCARTHY & Extra pics!

 

[rodderick]

Sign Cousins and take $40MM in the cap space available? Nevermind that he is coming off a a torn Achilles and won't be ready to play opening day. Nevermind that he isn't nearly as proven as you say, the guy has won nothing and has struggled to win nothing while actually being a mediocre player for his entire career. Even with top tier WR, he isn't anything close to what NE wants.

I just don't understand why people here want to sign Cousins or Brisset or anyone who have literally won nothing and have very mediocre stat lines to back it up.

At least Russ Wilson has won something and done so with less than big name and stat talent.

Eh, Cousins hasn't won anything, but one thing he doesn't have is a mediocre statline. He's been a top 12 QB or so for a decade now.

 

[EL Jeffe]

If I had to guess right now, I'd say 4 QBs go in the first 5 picks:

1) Chicago: Williams
2) Washington: Maye or Daniels
3) NE: Maye or Daniels or McCarthy (or someone trading up for one of the three)
4) Arizona: Harrison Jr.
5) Chargers: Open for business

I think the Chargers end up trading down for someone who needs a QB. You've got the Giants, Atlanta, Minnesota, Denver, and the Raiders picking anywhere from 6-13 and all in the QB market. Cousins may take one of these teams out of the running. Maybe someone goes with Fields for some reason. But even so, that sill leaves 3 teams (and maybe more) all playing musical chairs. I know plenty of people consider McCarthy to be in that next tier with Nix and Penix, but I truly believe he's going to end up in the Daniels/Maye tier for reasons I explained earlier.

So if your idea is to trade down from 4 and still get your QB, I really don't see it as viable unless you're sold on Nix or Penix--or you feel like the haul you get is just too good to pass up. But that's a dangerous game to play.

 

[Toe Nash]

I mean...to win it all you need stars at more than just one position and you need to hit on picks that aren't top 10. No shit. If you just have MHJ and nothing or Calvin Johnson and nothing, or even Calvin Johnson and Matthew Stafford and garbage coaching and drafting elsewhere you're not getting anywhere.

But for a QB to have success, you also need a strong foundation of coaching and development who can help him, and preferably an offensive line that can help him not get killed. If you don't have that, you might never develop a talented guy or you might have a guy who was promising get a debilitating injury / develop bad habits / etc. That can set you back for 3-4 years and limit other moves, while if you know you are building a strong team and just need a QB you may be more open to opportunities that can come up, whether that's getting a nice comeback year from Baker Mayfield or a late-career HoFer joining up for one or two last runs.

We hope the Patriots are putting together the coaching staff on the offensive side of the ball who can develop a talented QB and getting the offensive line that can give him time to throw but I don't have confidence that's there, we really have no idea, and it seems like taking MHJ or trading down and getting an OT is the far safer bet. Or maybe there is a way to redshirt the QB for this year.

I'd also add that while you can find stud WRs later, I feel like the league is getting better at targeting the real star guys with size and speed at the top of the draft or trading big pick hauls for them and the hit rate on top 10 guys like that is very good.

It is unfortunate that Arizona seems happy with Kyler because I'd love to see what I could get to move down one slot. Really we just need more picks IMHO.

 

[Cellar-Door]

I mean...to win it all you need stars at more than just one position and you need to hit on picks that aren't top 10. No shit. If you just have MHJ and nothing or Calvin Johnson and nothing, or even Calvin Johnson and Matthew Stafford and garbage coaching and drafting elsewhere you're not getting anywhere.

But for a QB to have success, you also need a strong foundation of coaching and development who can help him, and preferably an offensive line that can help him not get killed. If you don't have that, you might never develop a talented guy or you might have a guy who was promising get a debilitating injury / develop bad habits / etc. That can set you back for 3-4 years and limit other moves, while if you know you are building a strong team and just need a QB you may be more open to opportunities that can come up, whether that's getting a nice comeback year from Baker Mayfield or a late-career HoFer joining up for one or two last runs.

We hope the Patriots are putting together the coaching staff on the offensive side of the ball who can develop a talented QB and getting the offensive line that can give him time to throw but I don't have confidence that's there, we really have no idea, and it seems like taking MHJ or trading down and getting an OT is the far safer bet. Or maybe there is a way to redshirt the QB for this year.

Passing on what is likely to be your best shot at a franchise QB is never safer, finding a QB is generally the hardest and most important part of the process. You can trade for elite WRs... happens all the time (also a lot of top WRs go late 1st or later), you can sign or trade for OTs (or draft them outside the top half of the 1st)... QBs almost exclusively come from early in the draft and are very rarely available in trade.

Doing it for a WR is GM malpractice. I think people are wildly undervaluing the ability of a team with the cap space and draft assets the Patriots have of getting a not terrible situation. You draft a QB at 3, you can between 34/68 and a ton of cap space, give him an acceptable O-line and some decent weapons, more than enough to develop him, then you go into next season with more picks, more cap space, more opportunities.

Just run through your mock offseason... okay, you take a QB at 3, say a OT at 34 and a WR prospect at 68. You re-sign Onwenwu and add Eluemenor or similar as the other tackle until the rookie is ready. You still have plenty of money left to add some other passcatching talent. That is a team with a competent O-line and some decent targets, not going to stunt developing your QB. Then you go into 2025 with the ability to add more talent.

You're far more likely to find ways to add talent everywhere but QB than QB, always lock down the most important and rarest thing first if you get the chance.

 

[BaseballJones]

Yep. You get the single hardest thing to get (franchise QB) when you're in the best position to do so - which is now, at #3 in the draft. Figure out the rest after. (or with free agency, you have to figure some of it out sooner, but you can do so in this case because you know you're getting a really good QB prospect at #3 no matter what)

 

[NortheasternPJ]

Passing on what is likely to be your best shot at a franchise QB is never safer, finding a QB is generally the hardest and most important part of the process. You can trade for elite WRs... happens all the time (also a lot of top WRs go late 1st or later), you can sign or trade for OTs (or draft them outside the top half of the 1st)... QBs almost exclusively come from early in the draft and are very rarely available in trade.

Doing it for a WR is GM malpractice. I think people are wildly undervaluing the ability of a team with the cap space and draft assets the Patriots have of getting a not terrible situation. You draft a QB at 3, you can between 34/68 and a ton of cap space, give him an acceptable O-line and some decent weapons, more than enough to develop him, then you go into next season with more picks, more cap space, more opportunities.

Just run through your mock offseason... okay, you take a QB at 3, say a OT at 34 and a WR prospect at 68. You re-sign Onwenwu and add Eluemenor or similar as the other tackle until the rookie is ready. You still have plenty of money left to add some other passcatching talent. That is a team with a competent O-line and some decent targets, not going to stunt developing your QB. Then you go into 2025 with the ability to add more talent.

You're far more likely to find ways to add talent everywhere but QB than QB, always lock down the most important and rarest thing first if you get the chance.

I’m going to print this out and frame it.

 

[Pxer]

My vote I think is similar to others'. Keep 3, take the best QB available and hope. If it doesn't work out, take another one in 3 years. It's the only path to sustained success. You can have a good quarterback and suck, but it takes more than we seem to have right now to be able to have a mediocre QB and win consistently.

If we were picking 1st or 2d, it would be worth the mental energy of trying to figure out which one is the best. But at 3, the top 2 teams are going to make our pick for us.

Exact same feelings. I hope somehow Maye falls. I'm not a big Daniels fan, but you have to try if you think he has an outside shot at being a top 5-6 type of QB.

 

[MikeM]

Whats the realistic best case scenario with Fields?

Assuming you made the right call/s were made in coaching transition, and aided successfully by the ample amount of cap space you guys have? You end up with Lamar v2 and pat yourself on the back for plugging in a backend top 10 NFL QB. Which helps you bypass a year or 2 of the rebuilding pain and process that likely would of had to come with the start from scratch Daniels, and who had to come without the extra much higher probability chance you hit big piece that typically comes with NOT drafting QB in the lottery rounds.

I don't want to get too caught in weeds with addressing the rest as a non-Pats fan as it's really not my place to do so here, but I will again repeat my belief on this. Justin Fields is not Zach Wilson. I also haven't seen/heard anybody who's actually spent more then 5 minutes taking a quick glace at his R-Ref stat page making the argument that Fields looked "mediocre" as player talent last year. Again to me the tape on him and especially in the latter season looks fairly encouraging as a whole, and especially given his higher projected floor. When the opportunity was there he was making all the throws you wanted to see him make. Great locker room guy by all accounts too fwtw. Stat lines don't always tell the whole story, and a lot of that struggle within them didn't trace back to him on a individual execution level.

If the roles were reversed and Chicago was drafting #3 I truely believe they keep Fields and trade out. I also think it's important to remember that nowhere in that above "you absolutely have to draft QB in that spot" ideology does an actual individual player evaluation get made. It basically just defaults to allowing the hype machine to more or less enslave your decision making process imo. To a fairly extreme point where whether or not you even believe in Jayden Daniels as a player arguably becomes a secondary consideration to the wishcasting concept.

 

[Norm loves Vera]

Have there been any hints on what type of offense AVP wants to impliment? The Patriots offense is pretty close to tabla rasa as one can be and can go in any direction.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Have there been any hints on what type of offense AVP wants to impliment? The Patriots offense is pretty close to tabla rasa as one can be and can go in any direction.

He has said something like what he ran in Cleveland.

 

[Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt]

This has some decent stuff in it:

https://www.patriots.com/news/five-takeaways-from-the-patriots-introductory-press-conference-with-new-coordinators-alex-van-pelt-demarcus-covington-and-jeremy-springer

This is a deep dive into what the Browns O was like:

https://www.patriots.com/news/film-review-how-will-the-patriots-offense-look-under-new-offensive-coordinator-alex-van-pelt

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

I’ve read so many posts lately detailing why a QB at 3 is a no brainer and it gives me pause. Why on earth would we want the 3rd best anything picking that high up? Then I go on reading more posts showing in depth breakdowns on how the more talented players usually get picked higher… No shit? Without the numbers I would have guessed that throughout the league the more talented players were drafted higher. Thats what the draft is. This years QB draft is so similar to last year. The top 2, the dual threat at 3 and the toolsy unknown at 4. Basically a 50/50 shot that one of the top 2 takes off, a likelihood that the dual threat plays a handful of games and the toolsy unknown left with the same question marks at the end of the season. If QB is the end all, be all and it is then you take one of William’s or Maye if they drop other than that the smart play this year would be to accumulate early picks and get as many chances as possible at acquiring offensive pieces. Double up on tackles and WRs early, draft Penix and Rattler and see which one can beat the vet backup in camp.

 

[BaseballJones]

If it just so happens that QB is the most important position in football - actually in all of team sports by a mile - and there are three tremendous QB prospects, who cares if you get the third one if that third one is still a tremendous prospect at this most important position, which you also happen to need?

 

[leftfieldlegacy]

If you trade out of #3 to accumulate picks then you're moving down in the first round which means you're also not getting the best tackle or the best WR. I'd rather roll the dice on QB3 than OT2/3 or WR2/3.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

Eh, Cousins hasn't won anything, but one thing he doesn't have is a mediocre statline. He's been a top 12 QB or so for a decade now.

Unless he plays outdoors in the elements. Then, his statline is mediocre, at best.

 

[Bowser]

If it just so happens that QB is the most important position in football - actually in all of team sports by a mile - and there are three tremendous QB prospects, who cares if you get the third one if that third one is still a tremendous prospect at this most important position, which you also happen to need?

Are there three tremendous QB prospects? Sure, Williams may be tremendous and the best prospect since Lawrence, but the fact that Lawrence has turned out to be average has to be part of the calculus, no?

Are Maye and Daniels tremendous? I don't think so. I'm not sure Daniels is even a top 10 prospect. I know these sites don't mean shit, but PFF has him ranked 11th, ESPN 10th, CBS 9th, Fox Sports 12th, PFN 14th.

A few posts back, I think it was @Deathofthebambino who argued that Williams, Maye, and Daniels are better prospects than the majority of QBs drafted in Round 1 over the last several years. If this is true, it means they're better prospects than Herbert, Hurts, Allen, Jackson, Mahomes, Prescott, and, hell, Brady, Rodgers, Brees, and Roethlisberger, too. But does anyone actually believe Maye or Daniels will be as good as the worst QB on this list, let alone better than him? Of course not, and so what's the point of touting their prospect rating? We all know it's a highly inexact science ... at best.

In short, there's a ton of value in the #3 pick. I'd rather not waste it on a prospect whom we all understand has a considerably less than 50/50 chance of even being average.

 

[Old Fart Tree]

Have there been any hints on what type of offense AVP wants to impliment? The Patriots offense is pretty close to tabla rasa as one can be and can go in any direction.

Hearing a lot of smoke about the Delaware Wing T.

 

[BaseballJones]

Are there three tremendous QB prospects? Sure, Williams may be tremendous and the best prospect since Lawrence, but the fact that Lawrence has turned out to be average has to be part of the calculus, no?

Are Maye and Daniels tremendous? I don't think so. I'm not sure Daniels is even a top 10 prospect. I know these sites don't mean shit, but PFF has him ranked 11th, ESPN 10th, CBS 9th, Fox Sports 12th, PFN 14th.

A few posts back, I think it was @Deathofthebambino who argued that Williams, Maye, and Daniels are better prospects than the majority of QBs drafted in Round 1 over the last several years. If this is true, it means they're better prospects than Herbert, Hurts, Allen, Jackson, Mahomes, Prescott, and, hell, Brady, Rodgers, Brees, and Roethlisberger, too. But does anyone actually believe Maye or Daniels will be as good as the worst QB on this list, let alone better than him? Of course not, and so what's the point of touting their prospect rating? We all know it's a highly inexact science ... at best.

In short, there's a ton of value in the #3 pick. I'd rather not waste it on a prospect whom we all understand has a considerably less than 50/50 chance of even being average.

As far as QB prospects go, they're all (Williams/Maye/Daniels) really good with big time upside. Of course there's a better than 50% chance they don't get there. But you don't get many chances to take a top-tier QB prospect, at a time when you have a glaring need at that position.

 

[NortheasternPJ]

Are there three tremendous QB prospects? Sure, Williams may be tremendous and the best prospect since Lawrence, but the fact that Lawrence has turned out to be average has to be part of the calculus, no?

Are Maye and Daniels tremendous? I don't think so. I'm not sure Daniels is even a top 10 prospect. I know these sites don't mean shit, but PFF has him ranked 11th, ESPN 10th, CBS 9th, Fox Sports 12th, PFN 14th.

A few posts back, I think it was @Deathofthebambino who argued that Williams, Maye, and Daniels are better prospects than the majority of QBs drafted in Round 1 over the last several years. If this is true, it means they're better prospects than Herbert, Hurts, Allen, Jackson, Mahomes, Prescott, and, hell, Brady, Rodgers, Brees, and Roethlisberger, too. But does anyone actually believe Maye or Daniels will be as good as the worst QB on this list, let alone better than him? Of course not, and so what's the point of touting their prospect rating? We all know it's a highly inexact science ... at best.

In short, there's a ton of value in the #3 pick. I'd rather not waste it on a prospect whom we all understand has a considerably less than 50/50 chance of even being average.

So what's the plan then? Try to hit a QB Late, bring in a vet? It's obvious that an OT or Harrison is the safe choice, but you can't win without a QB. SF just showed this. You may strike lightning with a Foles, but it almost never happens.

 

[wasabisam]

Your argument is (intentionally?) ignoring statistical reasoning. They could be more likely than any/all of the players you mentioned and still not reach that level. It’s not an either/or. Also is the hit rate for tackles that much higher? Does Alt have a 90% chance of being top-5? How do you factor in position scarcity and impact?

Seems like it is a good game to take the risk on the 3rd best QB this year if we really think he’s better than the majority of QBs drafted in Round 1 over the last several years.


[/QUOTE]

A few posts back, I think it was @Deathofthebambino who argued that Williams, Maye, and Daniels are better prospects than the majority of QBs drafted in Round 1 over the last several years. If this is true, it means they're better prospects than Herbert, Hurts, Allen, Jackson, Mahomes, Prescott, and, hell, Brady, Rodgers, Brees, and Roethlisberger, too. But does anyone actually believe Mayr or Daniels will be as good as the
Your argument is (intentionally?) ignoring statistical reasoning. They could be more likely than any/all of the players you mentioned and still not reach that level. It’s not an either/or. Also is the hit rate for tackles that much higher? Does Alt have a 90% chance of being top-5? How do you factor in position scarcity and impact?

Seems like it is a good game to take the risk on the 3rd best QB this year if we really think he’s a better prospect than the best QBs of the last few years.
worst QB on this list, let alone better than him? Of course not, and so what's the point of touting their prospect rating? We all know it's a highly inexact science ... at best.

In short, there's a ton of value in the #3 pick. I'd rather not waste it on a prospect whom we all understand has a considerably less than 50/50 chance of even being average.

 

[Jungleland]

Not to derail, but I can’t really get behind an argument that SF is proof you can’t win without a QB. They took the Chiefs to OT in the Super Bowl and arguably lost because of a bad coaching decision to take the ball first more than any failing on Purdy’s part. Two drives that stalled out in the red zone may have been the difference, but that’s beyond a small sample. They were one of the best two teams in football and blew it 61 minutes into the last game of the year, the ring or bust way of evaluating how they built the team doesn’t work for me.

The better argument against following the SF model to me is that they drafted excellently for multiple years Lance trade aside, had a generational RB fall into their laps at reasonable value, and still at least kind of hit on QB late - the chance of any given team pulling that off isn’t higher than the chance Daniels or Maye is good enough to elevate you by themselves imo.

 

[Bowser]

So what's the plan then? Try to hit a QB Late, bring in a vet? It's obvious that an OT or Harrison is the safe choice, but you can't win without a QB. SF just showed this. You may strike lightning with a Foles, but it almost never happens.

I'd probably trade down to 6-8, pick up an extra top 50 pick (or more) and draft McCarthy, assuming he looks good over the next two months (or Bowers or an OT). Or I'd stick at #3 and take Alt and look to draft Penix in R2 or Rattler in R3, and then double dip with one from the Pratt, Milton, Hartman or Carter Bradley gang. I admit this is not a very exciting plan.

Seems like it is a good game to take the risk on the 3rd best QB this year if we really think he’s better than the majority of QBs drafted in Round 1 over the last several years.

Sure, maybe. But my point is that declaring one player to be a "better prospect" than another player from a past draft is so incredibly imprecise as to be mostly useless, and the fact that R1 QBs have a higher hit rate than those drafted in R7 doesn't exactly discredit this way of thinking. What's the real, expected difference between Daniels and McCarthy? To me, not much.

Note: What I'm hoping to avoid is the Pats drafting Daniels and then discovering his arm doesn't play that well against NFL defenses, and then see him get broken in half by a safety because he's thin and runs recklessly, which is all over his film. He may be a better prospect than Larmar Jackson, but he's no Lamar Jackson.

 

[NextBigThing8184]

Are there three tremendous QB prospects? Sure, Williams may be tremendous and the best prospect since Lawrence, but the fact that Lawrence has turned out to be average has to be part of the calculus, no?

Are Maye and Daniels tremendous? I don't think so. I'm not sure Daniels is even a top 10 prospect. I know these sites don't mean shit, but PFF has him ranked 11th, ESPN 10th, CBS 9th, Fox Sports 12th, PFN 14th.

A few posts back, I think it was @Deathofthebambino who argued that Williams, Maye, and Daniels are better prospects than the majority of QBs drafted in Round 1 over the last several years. If this is true, it means they're better prospects than Herbert, Hurts, Allen, Jackson, Mahomes, Prescott, and, hell, Brady, Rodgers, Brees, and Roethlisberger, too. But does anyone actually believe Maye or Daniels will be as good as the worst QB on this list, let alone better than him? Of course not, and so what's the point of touting their prospect rating? We all know it's a highly inexact science ... at best.

In short, there's a ton of value in the #3 pick. I'd rather not waste it on a prospect whom we all understand has a considerably less than 50/50 chance of even being average.

so instead of taking a “less than 50/50 chance of average” QB - the most important position in pro sports, you’d rather trade it for multiple picks which would be worse chances of being average at less important positions?

 

[NextBigThing8184]

Not to derail, but I can’t really get behind an argument that SF is proof you can’t win without a QB. They took the Chiefs to OT in the Super Bowl and arguably lost because of a bad coaching decision to take the ball first more than any failing on Purdy’s part. Two drives that stalled out in the red zone may have been the difference, but that’s beyond a small sample. They were one of the best two teams in football and blew it 61 minutes into the last game of the year, the ring or bust way of evaluating how they built the team doesn’t work for me.

The better argument against following the SF model to me is that they drafted excellently for multiple years Lance trade aside, had a generational RB fall into their laps at reasonable value, and still at least kind of hit on QB late - the chance of any given team pulling that off isn’t higher than the chance Daniels or Maye is good enough to elevate you by themselves imo.

It’s not like Purdy is Zappe or Zach Wilson. Or even Winston or Howell. He’s a good QB, perhaps very good. It’s weird to me that he’s “proof” of any “you can win without a QB” argument given he’s a top 15 QB in the league

If the 49ers got to the Super Bowl with Easton Stick or Cooper Rush or something, that would maybe be evidence of being able to win with a a great team + bad QB but Purdy isn’t on that level so the whole thing is moot

 

[Bowser]

so instead of taking a “less than 50/50 chance of average” QB - the most important position in pro sports, you’d rather trade it for multiple picks which would be worse chances of being average at less important positions?

Sure, because to me McCarthy + extra pick(s) > Daniels.

The problem is we don't have a clue if Daniels actually gives you a better chance of solving the Pats' QB problem than does Penix + Milton. Maybe, maybe not. YMMV.

 

[sezwho]

I’m curious what others here would view as a good trade back return. What would you need to be happy with trading back and taking…

-MHJ?
-Alt?
-Nabers?
-Odunze?
-Fashanu?
-McCarthy?

For me, the sweet spot is somewhere in the ballpark of an additional first, second, and third and coming away with Alt, which I don’t think will be on the table and I’m still not convinced it wouldn’t be disappointing to not just take Daniels.

I’m only giving up three if I think I can solve at least two holes instead of one, basically immediately, for the return. I don’t believe it’s a long rebuild and they could be as good as next years QB allows.

So I’ll take any QB if I value one, but after that I need to know I can get (LT and WR) or (QB and LT), etc. Then I have all my remaining cash and pick capital to sort the remainder…including future picks as needed.

If they keep Onwenu (tag if needed) and get an LT then the line becomes a potential strength instead of the real (non Mac) albatross it was most of the season.

 

[Jungleland]

It’s not like Purdy is Zappe or Zach Wilson. Or even Winston or Howell. He’s a good QB, perhaps very good. It’s weird to me that he’s “proof” of any “you can win without a QB” argument given he’s a top 15 QB in the league

If the 49ers got to the Super Bowl with Easton Stick or Cooper Rush or something, that would maybe be evidence of being able to win with a a great team + bad QB but Purdy isn’t on that level so the whole thing is moot

Ironically, I was referring to the idea that the 9ers didn't win because Purdy isn't good enough - NortheasternPJ's post most recently, but that's certainly not the first I've seen it. I disagree with that line of thinking both because of what you said (Purdy is in the top 15 ballpark) and because I don't really consider losing a Super Bowl where you were tied at the end of regulation as negative proof about a team's ability to contend at the highest level. Even though they ultimately lost, that it was essentially coinflip territory favors any Purdy is good enough argument. (Similarly, had the Chiefs turned the ball over on downs or something on their last possession and lost, I wouldn't look at it as proof that you can't win without a full cast of elite WRs.)

Ymmv on what that says about needing/not needing a QB to win it all.

 

[NDame616]

If you trade out of #3 to accumulate picks then you're moving down in the first round which means you're also not getting the best tackle or the best WR. I'd rather roll the dice on QB3 than OT2/3 or WR2/3.

There's about 90 years of history to show you that this is not true.

For example, we got a pretty good QB at 199 a few short years ago....

 

[snowmanny]

Well, I think poster means best chance at the best WR or OT…

 

[Deathofthebambino]

Sure, because to me McCarthy + extra pick(s) > Daniels.

The problem is we don't have a clue if Daniels actually gives you a better chance of solving the Pats' QB problem than does Penix + Milton. Maybe, maybe not. YMMV.

That's the crux of it, isn't it? You're sold on McCarthy over Daniels. If you're not, (I'm personally not sold on either of them but I've been on the Williams/Maye wagon for over a year now), then that's fine.

If Williams and Maye go 1/2 and the Pats don't love Daniels, then they should trade down (but taking fliers on guys like Penix later on because they hit on a QB at 199 almost 25 years ago is a foolish notion) and accumulate as much talent elsewhere as they can. I'm on record as saying that they should go after Russell Wilson in that situation, who would cost less than Brissett.

But none of that changes the fact the top of this QB class is as strong as any class in recent memory, and is sure as hell going to better than next years class. Of course there's a chance they all bust. There's also a chance they could turn into the 1983 class. Nobody knows anything with certainty until they hit the field. What we do know is that QB is the most important position in sports, hitting on a rookie QB opens money and doors for 4 years to build out your roster, and you only play one QB. A 25% chance of hitting on a top 10 QB is infinitely more valuable than a 75% chance of hitting on a tackle or receiver, especially when you literally don't have a QB.

Building a team with a guy like Brissett in front of the 6th or 7th drafted QB who has a 5% chance of working out is an even bigger longshot because that's how you end up with the 15th pick and get Mac Jones. And then you end up in NFL purgatory until you bottom out and end up right where we are now.

 

[leftfieldlegacy]

There's about 90 years of history to show you that this is not true.

For example, we got a pretty good QB at 199 a few short years ago....

Sure. The greatest QB of all time fell to 199. Lots of players who are not highly rated go on to have great even HoF careers. My point was that in 2024 if you expect to draft Alt or Harrison you would be wise to be picking in the top of round 1.

 

[Cellar-Door]

Sure, because to me McCarthy + extra pick(s) > Daniels.

The problem is we don't have a clue if Daniels actually gives you a better chance of solving the Pats' QB problem than does Penix + Milton. Maybe, maybe not. YMMV.

The problem with this is you're conflating things. Sure we don't know if any of these guys will work out, but we do know things about them, this isn't pulling a powerball ticket. You're making a decision based on years of professional evaluation on things that are not the same. So do we know Daniels is more likely to solve our QB problem than Milton... yes we do, because we can look at their physical attributes and skills as shown in years of competitive football. You can say that you personally don't think Daniels is as good a prospect as others... sure, but that doesn't mean that taking lesser prospects is not less likely to solve your problem.

There's about 90 years of history to show you that this is not true.

For example, we got a pretty good QB at 199 a few short years ago....

Sure and someone will win the powerball, doesn't mean that buying a powerball ticket is a good approach if you are trying to grow your money.


In general one thing I think people don't think about enough in QB discussions.... QBs are not like other players in terms of their value to you. One reason we talk about high bust rates for QBs is because.... it takes a lot less to be a bust at QB.

If I draft Jaylen Daniels and he develops into a top 5 QB in the league.... that's one of the best 5 draft picks by anyone in a decade. If he turns into the 25th best QB in the league that's a bust, anything below that is an abject disaster.. If I draft Marvin Harrison Jr and he's the 25th best wideout in the league.... not bad. Top 40.. not ideal but decent, top 50... okay disappointing maybe even a bust. outside the top 50... probably a bust, to get to abject disaster (ie unplayable) I need to get to what... 75? 90?.

QBs who are elite make you a contender every year unless you totally botch things. QBs consistently in the top 10 open up all kinds of avenues to success. No other position does that. It also means that you can't AGGREGATE value between QB and elsewhere.

Lets say we take Derrick Klassen.... he's not all that high on Daniels. From his podcast appearances he says he thinks Daniels has a lot of concerns in terms of running style and frame... he has a good but nothing special arm, he needs to use the middle more. He also says that if he can stay healthy he projects him as a good NFL starting QB (I interpret that as top 10ish) that you can win with. McCarthy, he doesn't think he's dynamic as a runner, he needs a lot of work in terms of experience and decision making/footwork, and his arm is not that great (similar to Daniels) he says he could see him becoming an NFL starter, but more bottom end. Penix he thinks is undraftable for a combination of medical and just not being a guy who can operate under any pressure, poor layering, doesn't/can't use the middle etc... without health issue he thinks he's a career backup 3rd/4th round type. Nix he thinks is a backup, decent 4th round guy but never going to be a starter, high end backup.

Now... lets say he's perfectly right on all of those. Well you can't just aggregate McCarthy with a good WR or OT or something and get Daniels.... The tier breaks in QB talent are enormous. If you get Daniels you're in a perpetual window. If you get McCarthy you're maybe in a 4 year window if you get lucky.

Now, evaluating what guys can be what and then developing them to get them to that end product is one of the hardest things in the NFL it's why there are a ton of highly paid professionals involved and they still miss a ton. But that's why people who think Daniels can be a top 10 QB in the league if things go right want to draft him. ANd why if you don't think that... you don't trade down and draft a lesser QB, you just trade down and hope you get lucky enough to be in this position again when there IS a guy you think can be that is available (or trade up I guess but you'd need a team to either not share your opinion, or CHI to think Fields is one of those guys). Of course I left out Maye, who some people think could be there at 3, and Klassen thinks can be elite. Which of course runs into the "how do you evaluate these guys" question.

 

[NextBigThing8184]

That's the crux of it, isn't it? You're sold on McCarthy over Daniels. If you're not, (I'm personally not sold on either of them but I've been on the Williams/Maye wagon for over a year now), then that's fine.

If Williams and Maye go 1/2 and the Pats don't love Daniels, then they should trade down (but taking fliers on guys like Penix later on because they hit on a QB at 199 almost 25 years ago is a foolish notion) and accumulate as much talent elsewhere as they can. I'm on record as saying that they should go after Russell Wilson in that situation, who would cost less than Brissett.

But none of that changes the fact the top of this QB class is as strong as any class in recent memory, and is sure as hell going to better than next years class. Of course there's a chance they all bust. There's also a chance they could turn into the 1983 class. Nobody knows anything with certainty until they hit the field. What we do know is that QB is the most important position in sports, hitting on a rookie QB opens money and doors for 4 years to build out your roster, and you only play one QB. A 25% chance of hitting on a top 10 QB is infinitely more valuable than a 75% chance of hitting on a tackle or receiver, especially when you literally don't have a QB.

Building a team with a guy like Brissett in front of the 6th or 7th drafted QB who has a 5% chance of working out is an even bigger longshot because that's how you end up with the 15th pick and get Mac Jones. And then you end up in NFL purgatory until you bottom out and end up right where we are now.

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?

 

[Bowser]

That's the crux of it, isn't it? You're sold on McCarthy over Daniels. If you're not, (I'm personally not sold on either of them but I've been on the Williams/Maye wagon for over a year now), then that's fine.

To clarify, I'm not sold on McCarthy over Daniels. Daniels is the better prospect. But I am mostly sold on the idea that by April, McCarthy will be considered only a slightly less good prospect than Daniels, and in this case, I'd prefer McCarthy after trading down plus the extra pick(s) rather than Daniels at 3.

You can say that you personally don't think Daniels is as good a prospect as others... sure, but that doesn't mean that taking lesser prospects is not less likely to solve your problem.

What I'm saying is there are so many variables in play when it comes to determining prospect status that fine distinctions can't accurately be made. Agreed, Milton will not pan out at the rate someone like Daniels will, and so there is some predictive value. But when it comes to comparing Daniels vs. McCarthy, prospect status is so crude as to mean basically nothing, IMO.

The Pats are sitting on unprecedented draft capital, and I don't want them to spend 70% of it (#3, 2,200/3,150 total pts -- using DraftTek) on a QB if we can get a prospect who is only slightly inferior to Daniels by trading down (#11, 1,250 pts), picking up extra picks, and throwing 40% at the problem.

But I certainly get that some on this board prize the QB position so highly that they don't mind paying a premium for the (slightly) superior prospect.

 

[E5 Yaz]

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?

For the same reason there's an assumption that taking the remaining Big 3 QB with the No. 3 pick will "solve" the hole at QB.

 

[BaseballJones]

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.

 

[MikeM]

To clarify, I'm not sold on McCarthy over Daniels. Daniels is the better prospect. But I am mostly sold on the idea that by April, McCarthy will be considered only a slightly less good prospect than Daniels, and in this case, I'd prefer McCarthy after trading down plus the extra pick(s) rather than Daniels at 3.

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. Especially McCarthy in particular at this point, and who seemingly is already starting to get the Anthony Richradson'like treatment in the early hype machine build-up to the draft.

Outside isolated paper theory the Pats are either planning to draft a QB at #3, or shifting the plan at QB over to a solution that doesn't involve banking on every other team in the league allowing these "value" QB flyers to conveniently drop to you in the latter rounds. I realistically don't see any middle ground to be had there for the people that ultimately have to make those plans and decisions. If one of those latter QB happen to drop to you that's just an unexpected bonus opportunity you then evaluate in itself when the time comes, and not something you reasonably plan on or factor into a decision to pass on at QB at #3.

 

[Cellar-Door]

What I'm saying is there are so many variables in play when it comes to determining prospect status that fine distinctions can't accurately be made. Agreed, Milton will not pan out at the rate someone like Daniels will, and so there is some predictive value. But when it comes to comparing Daniels vs. McCarthy, prospect status is so crude as to mean basically nothing, IMO.

So this is what I fundamentally disagree with, because it's mostly based on you substituting in you own view of McCarthy. Most people do not see the difference between Daniels/McCarthy as fine distinctions, they see them as entirely different tiers of prospects. 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.

The Pats are sitting on unprecedented draft capital, and I don't want them to spend 70% of it (#3, 2,200/3,150 total pts -- using DraftTek) on a QB if we can get a prospect who is only slightly inferior to Daniels by trading down (#11, 1,250 pts), picking up extra picks, and throwing 40% at the problem.

So this is the other thing....
1. Is he only slightly inferior (many would say no, he's substantially inferior.)?
2. Why do you assume he will be there at 11? If you think he's only a little worse than Daniels you have to assume other teams think that as well (or are even higher than that on him) in which case he's a risk to go any spot from 4 on.
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.

But I certainly get that some on this board prize the QB position so highly that they don't mind paying a premium for the (slightly) superior prospect.

This is true, but also kind of misses part of the point. It's not just that QB is many times more impactful than any other position, it's also the fundamental difference in how QB works vs. other positions as I mentioned upthread, relative value of QBs is different than any other position.

 

[Was (Not Wasdin)]

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.

 

[DJnVa]

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.

Since QB is the most important position, I think it might help discussion if scenarios that don't include us taking a QB would, instead, name the guy who will be taking snaps.

We hear "get a vet" or "get Cousins" but in the first case, who? In the second, "why?"