NFL Offseason '18: Our American Cousins

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

56 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

I didn't get this one. Who is Dylan?

 

[Kalbear]

29 minutes ago, briantw said:

I think the point is that you have a much better shot of hitting on a QB when you get the first crack at it and not the sloppy seconds.

Sure, but again, your goal is simple: can you get a QB that will allow you to save money and win. This is the strategy that allowed both the Seahawks and Eagles to win superbowls. The other option apparently is to get an amazing coach who can turn random players into stars and have a GOAT in your QB, but that isn't quite as reproducible.

So yeah, picking 1st is better, but if there are 2-3 QBs that can fit the mould above, it's not that crucial. As an example, I think Winston and Mariota fit this well, in that both are probably not HOFs but both are guys who can enable their team to win and do enough to win on their own some of the time for the next few years. Does it matter that Winston went to TB and Mariota Tenn? Probably not.

Whereas in the class with Newton, there was basically no one worth a high pick other than Newton (and yes, I include Dalton in this) and if you weren't going to get Newton you shouldn't pick a QB, you should sign a journeyman for a couple years at a cheapish rate.

 

[briantw]

Just now, Kalbear said:

Sure, but again, your goal is simple: can you get a QB that will allow you to save money and win. This is the strategy that allowed both the Seahawks and Eagles to win superbowls. The other option apparently is to get an amazing coach who can turn random players into stars and have a GOAT in your QB, but that isn't quite as reproducible.

So yeah, picking 1st is better, but if there are 2-3 QBs that can fit the mould above, it's not that crucial. As an example, I think Winston and Mariota fit this well, in that both are probably not HOFs but both are guys who can enable their team to win and do enough to win on their own some of the time for the next few years. Does it matter that Winston went to TB and Mariota Tenn? Probably not.

Whereas in the class with Newton, there was basically no one worth a high pick other than Newton (and yes, I include Dalton in this) and if you weren't going to get Newton you shouldn't pick a QB, you should sign a journeyman for a couple years at a cheapish rate.

You bring up the Eagles, but their starting QB was picked second overall.  Yeah, he was hurt for the Super Bowl, but they still went QB high and it clearly worked out for them.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, briantw said:

You bring up the Eagles, but their starting QB was picked second overall.  Yeah, he was hurt for the Super Bowl, but they still went QB high and it clearly worked out for them.

Yes, I bring up the Eagles because it's a good plan! They thought Wentz could come in and win for them early and do well for them, and he did. If you think that your QB is there, you should go get him - even trading up - because it's so valuable. And to point out the Eagles, they were able to win because their defense was bolstered heavily by FA and signing back homegrown talent, they had a lot of good offensive weapons, and they could go into win now mode - all because they saved about 90m on their QB. 

In later rounds, if you think that there is a QB that could do that for you - Garroppolo or Cousins or Wilson or what have you - it's worth it just on the chance that you're right.

But if it's really someone who is a project, who is going to take years to get better - chances are good you shouldn't do that, because you won't reap the rewards of it - you'll either pay them a ton and be hit with the cap, or you'll have another team do it for you. Neither option is very good.

Anyway, you don't have to get a HoF QB. You just have to get a good one, and one that can start doing well quickly. 

I still think the biggest things to look for in this way are high % completion rate, ability to run (but not propensity for it), and years started. 

[briantw]

By the way, I think the Giants trading away JPP is a pretty clear indication that Chubb is going 2nd overall.  Given that the Giants seemed enamored with Rosen, I think this is further indication that the Browns will be taking him first overall, as they should.  He's the best QB prospect in this class.  

[Kalbear]

The biggest red flag against Rosen is that he has a history of injuries, including major concussions. That's not great. At the same time, his ability  to have 4 coordinators in 5 years and do well with all of them points to how likely it'll be that he'll produce right away. He'd be a good candidate for the go for it now type of strategy, I agree. 

Mayfield is the other one that is likely good to go right away.

[Fez]

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

The problem is in this draft there are a lot of QBs that will go high, but all of them are shaky. I really wouldn’t want to be a team that has a high draft pick and needs a QB this year.

Hence why you should always trade back and collect picks. Top picks aren’t that great unless there’s someone you absolutely want.

That’s why of course the Jets went full Jets with their ridiculous trade.

Hopefully there is a QB the Jets absolutely want, or rather that they want any of the top 3.

Thing is, trading back and collecting picks only works for so long; eventually you need a top level QB, and those are hard to come by. Trading for one already established as such would be even more expensive, and the chances of striking gold with one in the later rounds is extremely slim. The Jets have fielded multiple teams in the past 10 years with above-average to pro-bowl level talent at pretty much every position, but never had the QB to go along with it.

The 2009 and 2010 seasons, everyone just remembers the elite defense. But they also had a top quality O-line and plenty of talented position players; unfortunately Mark Sanchez could do nothing with them (and Brian Schottenheimer was a terrible O-coordinator). It was the same in 2015 (though the defense was only solid, not amazing), Eric Decker and Brandon Marshall were a hell of a WR-pair; and they were enough to make Fitzpatrick look good, but he couldn't do enough with them. 

I don't think the current Jets roster is as talented as any of those, but it's getting better, and they don't want to end up in that situation again. If they think they'll get their franchise QB with the #3 pick, they can have the rest of the pieces around them by the 2019 season to make a run (though of course there is still the stumbling block of the Patriots, but hopefully Brady has fully lost a step/retired by then) and keep going from there.

[briantw]

At any rate, it's looking very, very likely that Barkley will still be on the board at four, so if I'm the Browns, zero chance I take him first overall.  If he's still there at four, I at least consider it, but I lock down my top QB with the first pick and then see how the chips fall at number four.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, briantw said:

This is the case literally every year.  There's almost never a slam dunk QB prospect, but yet a QB almost always goes first or very high and goes on to be at least moderately successful. 

Slam dunk prospect are rare, but usually you know who the top dog is. I've seen people make the case for all five of the top prospects for why they are the best QB in this class. That's not normal. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Sure, but again, your goal is simple: can you get a QB that will allow you to save money and win. This is the strategy that allowed both the Seahawks and Eagles to win superbowls. The other option apparently is to get an amazing coach who can turn random players into stars and have a GOAT in your QB, but that isn't quite as reproducible.

So yeah, picking 1st is better, but if there are 2-3 QBs that can fit the mould above, it's not that crucial. As an example, I think Winston and Mariota fit this well, in that both are probably not HOFs but both are guys who can enable their team to win and do enough to win on their own some of the time for the next few years. Does it matter that Winston went to TB and Mariota Tenn? Probably not.

Whereas in the class with Newton, there was basically no one worth a high pick other than Newton (and yes, I include Dalton in this) and if you weren't going to get Newton you shouldn't pick a QB, you should sign a journeyman for a couple years at a cheapish rate.

 

This. Again, the point cannot be made enough. You don't just need good players, but good players at a good value. It's why the Pats have been so dominate for so long. They rarely overpay their players. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

45 minutes ago, Fez said:

Hopefully there is a QB the Jets absolutely want, or rather that they want any of the top 3.

I've read reports that Baker's always been their guy. It's risky, because you probably could have gotten him at six, but if you're fearful four guys go in the top five than I guess you have to make the trade. 

Quote

Thing is, trading back and collecting picks only works for so long; eventually you need a top level QB, and those are hard to come by. Trading for one already established as such would be even more expensive, and the chances of striking gold with one in the later rounds is extremely slim. The Jets have fielded multiple teams in the past 10 years with above-average to pro-bowl level talent at pretty much every position, but never had the QB to go along with it.

You don't have to have a top level QB to win. IIRC what you needs is a guy who grades out as top 12 in the league during the season that you win the title. And as far as trading back goes, it helps you stay young and cheap. It's a better model for long term stability. Sure you don't want to miss out on a potential franchise QB, but you really don't want to use a high pick who grades out as a second rounder.

*cough* Allen *cough* 

[Rhom]

I dunno... there’s a part of me that wants to see the Browns take Barkley at one and then either trade way back at 4 or take their best player available and then make a move to take Lamar Jackson late in the first or try to snag him early in the second.

Theres a part of me that would love to see two athletes like Barkley/Jackson share a backfield.  You’re the Browns.  If you can’t be good, should you at least try to be exciting?

I know it’s probably a terrible idea, but it’s definitely different from what the Browns have been doing... so that can’t be all wrong can it?

[briantw]

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Slam dunk prospect are rare, but usually you know who the top dog is. I've seen people make the case for all five of the top prospects for why they are the best QB in this class. That's not normal. 

Eh...I think it's just how it is in the hot take world we live in.  A consensus is boring.  Controversy is not.

Rosen is the best QB in this class.  Anyone who says otherwise is just trying to stir up shit.

[Jace, Extat]

16 minutes ago, briantw said:

Eh...I think it's just how it is in the hot take world we live in.  A consensus is boring.  Controversy is not.

Rosen is the best QB in this class.  Anyone who says otherwise is just trying to stir up shit.

Jackson. 

A million times, Jackson.

I understand we have to pretend that fast black guys are too dumb to play QB but I'd really like to sit down with the coaches and execs for an hour.

There's a real good Friday Night Lights episode about this.

[dbunting]

3 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Jackson. 

A million times, Jackson.

I understand we have to pretend that fast black guys are too dumb to play QB but I'd really like to sit down with the coaches and execs for an hour.

There's a real good Friday Night Lights episode about this.

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose...

[briantw]

3 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Jackson. 

A million times, Jackson.

I understand we have to pretend that fast black guys are too dumb to play QB but I'd really like to sit down with the coaches and execs for an hour.

There's a real good Friday Night Lights episode about this.

I like Jackson, but he's clearly not the best prospect in this draft.  He never completed more than 60% of his passes in his college career, and that's a massive, massive red flag for an incoming QB.  Allen has the same concern.  

I think Jackson can succeed in the NFL with the right coach.  I think Rosen can succeed with any coach.

[sperry]

11 hours ago, briantw said:

Eh...I think it's just how it is in the hot take world we live in.  A consensus is boring.  Controversy is not.

Rosen is the best QB in this class.  Anyone who says otherwise is just trying to stir up shit.

 

That's just not accurate. He doesn't have the best physical tools (that's Allen by a mile), and his college performance was not impressive.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 hours ago, Rhom said:

I dunno... there’s a part of me that wants to see the Browns take Barkley at one and then either trade way back at 4 or take their best player available and then make a move to take Lamar Jackson late in the first or try to snag him early in the second.

Theres a part of me that would love to see two athletes like Barkley/Jackson share a backfield.  You’re the Browns.  If you can’t be good, should you at least try to be exciting?

I know it’s probably a terrible idea, but it’s definitely different from what the Browns have been doing... so that can’t be all wrong can it?

It’s almost like somebody forgot about my comment a few pages back.

I forgive you though. They say human beings are 70% water, but I’m left speculating that residents of Kentucky consist of 60% water and 10% Bourbon.

8 hours ago, briantw said:

I like Jackson, but he's clearly not the best prospect in this draft.  He never completed more than 60% of his passes in his college career, and that's a massive, massive red flag for an incoming QB.  Allen has the same concern.  

I think Jackson can succeed in the NFL with the right coach.  I think Rosen can succeed with any coach.

Actually, if you control for dropped passes, he was more accurate in 2017 than Darnold. Personally I’d be tempted to draft the guy whose player comparison is Mike Vick.  

[mcbigski]

Great.  Brockstar to Miami.  Starting to wonder if the Jets are still paying Tannenbaum...

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

50 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Great.  Brockstar to Miami.  Starting to wonder if the Jets are still paying Tannenbaum...

Can't be worse than the Gore signing. Honestly we might be a little too harsh on Brockstar. It wasn't his fault that the Texans were willing to offer that abomination of a contract.