in this draft class.
I kept reading from people here that these 3 players are much better players than the QBs, and that they may be generational talents, etc. However, my question is this. Even if these 3 do become better players than the QBs - can the QBs impact on their respective teams be more meaningful?
For instance. We all know Larry Fitzgerald is one of the greatest WRs of all time. But did the impact he had on his team exceede what Eli, Ben, and Rivers brought to their teams? And would SD, Pitt, or the NYG take Fitz over what they got from their respective QBs?
Just something I have been thinking about lately....
And I don't mean to pick an overly extreme example. Take any 1st round QB that was even "above average."
My main point is that all 1st round QBs get a 3-4 year leash. It's purgatory if you don't pick a franchise guy, and you miss out on potential franchise QBs in the meantime. It's a double whammy.
The idea is to assess the risk of who is who among the QBs. If there is significant risk that the QBs available will not fall into the latter category...then you know the rest.
There is a reason why these 4 QBs are in play as a top 5 pick, whatever order they are picked. So even if they arent as good as the 3 players mentioned in the title - are they still worth the pick at 2?
Who had more impact?
Or put it another way: would the Eagles trade Wentz straight up for Zeke Elliot or Fournette or any other RB?
Let the three QBs go 1-2-3
Call me nuts but I rather have Barkley play year one at WR and deal Beckham to get there.
My team will not win paying obscene cash for anyone but an OL, DE, LB or QB. Cap busting! Harder to get a ring...
Look at the huge $$ savings NE Pats has in salaries QB, RB and WR!
Then they let skilled positions walk every year. They just traded for a wide out from Oak, last year the Saints.
Odell can not block to my satisfaction and need be I need cap next year to pay Collins
GET ME BARKLEY AND CHUBB!
Webb + Barkley/Chubb
QB from this draft class
Its going to be very interesting IMO. There are times where I think the Giants should just take Rosen or Darnold at 2. Then there are times I imagine what Barkley could bring.
If the Giants do in fact like Chubb and Barkley - if I am Gettleman, I am going to Denver and say - lets make a deal. I know Denver has their eyes on Nelso - but they probably thought they wouldnt get a QB. But if they like Rosen or if Darnold slips to 2 - the Giants MUST trade back. Cause they are then guaranteed either Barkley or Chubb and you would be able to pick some extra picks.
There is a reason why these 4 QBs are in play as a top 5 pick, whatever order they are picked. So even if they arent as good as the 3 players mentioned in the title - are they still worth the pick at 2?
The QB positional value is already factored in to where they are drafted. You can't assume that any QB is going to be good and produce, because the position demands are greater than any other position on the football team, and the jump from the college game to the pro game is the biggest for a QB.
You can safely assume that Barkley, Chubb, and Nelson are going to be impact players, IMO. Is the possibility there that one could bust? Yes. Chubb would be the one out of the three that has the most bust potential, imo, but I still think he's a safer bet than any QB, and a MUCH safer bet than any QB not named Sam Darnold.
You just can't make assumptions on QBs like you can elite prospects that are positional talents. It's just not the same, but the reward and value to a team for the QB is also much bigger.
If every position's value and importance was weighted equally, no QB would be taken until maybe middle or even late in the first round.
Who had more impact?
Or put it another way: would the Eagles trade Wentz straight up for Zeke Elliot or Fournette or any other RB?
This is spot on.
In other words, to the OP - NFW that Barkley/Chubb/Nelson could have more impact on that a QB. Laughable.
How often does a great DE get to the open market anyway?
If everyone in the NFL was put into a pool of players and there was a fantasy draft, the QB's would be the first 15 players taken! NFL QB's are by far more valuable than any other position, which is why they get paid so much more, which is why good QB's always get drafted higher than their draft grade and why there are 5 teams dying to trade to the top of this draft.
There is a reason why these 4 QBs are in play as a top 5 pick, whatever order they are picked. So even if they arent as good as the 3 players mentioned in the title - are they still worth the pick at 2?
All four going in the top 5 is media driven imo. I would bet that isn't the case. Its easy to say in retrospect that Losman is trash, but he was highly regarded then. Roethlisberger went 12. Losman 22. And that was a far superior class imo.
Dunedin, your last line is the key. I just find it hard to believe that we don't think any are, yet so many other teams clearly do. That's why I am convinced that everything is a smokescreen and we are taking a QB.
Who had more impact?
Or put it another way: would the Eagles trade Wentz straight up for Zeke Elliot or Fournette or any other RB?
That's only valid if you think these current players can approach those levels. But what if you feel that Barkley = Faulk and Darnold/Rosen = Alex Smith. Then what?
Has anyone looked at Davis Webb’s 2017 Prospect Profile?
He did jump around and did not get many reps at Cal.
If Gettleman is sold on Reese’s pick of Webb what would that say?
That is the key. Well that and their opinion of Webb and whether or not he can be a franchise QB.
Though I will say that it's difficult to win with below average DEs (pass rushers) and the Eagles (strong rush, though in no small part Cox, below average QB) did just beat the Pats (shitty pass rush, GOAT QB). :=)
Quote:
Tom Brady is the best QB
Who had more impact?
Or put it another way: would the Eagles trade Wentz straight up for Zeke Elliot or Fournette or any other RB?
That's only valid if you think these current players can approach those levels. But what if you feel that Barkley = Faulk and Darnold/Rosen = Alex Smith. Then what?
Does Faulk win anything without Peyton and Warner? So Webb is the Peyton and Warner to Barkely?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
sorry more impactful
If everyone in the NFL was put into a pool of players and there was a fantasy draft, the QB's would be the first 15 players taken!
That is a very interesting thought. It could be as high as 20.
Let's see, assuming the duration is a one year season only (no order) - Rodgers, JimG, Brady, Brees, Wilson, Watson, Roeth, Goff, Wentz, Dak, Luck, Cousins, Rivers, Carr, Newton, Ryan, ASmith, Winston, Stafford, Cousins...
That's 20 - left out notables: Eli, Mariota, Bortles, Flacco, Dalton...
Does Faulk win anything without Peyton and Warner? So Webb is the Peyton and Warner to Barkely?
Personally, I think Faulk was much more important to those teams than Warner.
That said, if the Giants FO thinks any of these QBs are the next Warner (i.e. future HOF) then the pick is a no brainer.
Emmitt Smith - Troy Aikman
Marshall Faulk - Kurt Warner
Terrell Davis - John Elway
Marshawn Lynch - Russell Wilson
Walter Payton - Jim McMahon
Willie Parker/Jerome Bettis - Ben Roethlisberger
Ray Rice - Joe Flacco
Marcus Allen - Jim Plunkett
Underlying your argument seems to be a base assumption that all of the QBs will be above average to great QBs simply because they are in consideration for top 5 picks. There's no reason to assume that's true.
2002 - David Carr (1), Joey Harrington (3)
2003 - Byron Leftwich (7)
2006 - Vince Young (3), Matt Leinart (10)
2007 - Jamarcus Russel (1)
2009 - Mark Sanchez (5)
2010 - Sam Bradford (1)
2011 - Jake Locker (8), Blaine Gabbert (10)
2012 - Robert Griffin (2), Ryan Tannehill (8)
2014 - Blake Bortles (3)
All of these guys were top 10 picks. All would probably be traded for high impact positional players by the teams that drafted them if they could go back and do it again.
Shit, I bet quite a few recent Super Bowl teams even did so.
It makes football sense.
Shit, I bet quite a few recent Super Bowl teams even did so.
Sounds great and all, but the part that you and many seem to be missing, when teams NEED a QB, they go up and get that QB. All of these SB teams that you are referring to, got their QB's when they didn't need that QB. They could afford to take a flier on a guy. Brady was drafted as a flier when Bledsoe was the franchise guy. Wilson was drafted as a flier in the same offseason they gave Matt Flynn huge money. Aaron Rodgers was drafted because the value was too damn good, despite having Brett Favre. When teams need QB's, they go get em. As will the Giants.
Also, to the guy posting the great RB's that played along side great QB's, please list all those great RB's that won consistently without a franchise QB.
Indeed, the Seahawks were able to get TWO QB's in one offseason without spending a top pick.
I'm not against the Giants drafting a QB at #2 by ANY means, but I don't agree with the notion that's the only way they'll get a quality one who can man the team for the next 10 years.
Well, gee, that was't a tough call for the Saints. Brees was 27 in 2006 with a proven track record of high level NFL production...
Yes, a great QB is more impactful than a great position player. That doesn't mean you have to draft whoever the top rated QB is in a given year over the top rated position player if you don't believe THAT QB is the goods. I do worry that the Giants may pass on a QB DG might otherwise like because of the way management is dealing with the end of Eli's career. That would be a mistake. But if they're just not sold on these QBs, the fact that Eli is old and you don't often get to pick at #2 doesn't mean you should overlook your evaluation.
Quote:
The 2006 Saints were coming off a 3-13 season and drafted 2nd. Imagine how much worse a team they would have been (and likely still would be) if they'd drafted Vince Young or Matt Leinart instead of signing Drew Brees.
Well, gee, that was't a tough call for the Saints. Brees was 27 in 2006 with a proven track record of high level NFL production...
In fairness, Brees was coming off a torn labrum on his throwing shoulder that scared off Saban & the 'Fins from signing him.
In fairness, Brees was coming off a torn labrum on his throwing shoulder that scared off Saban & the 'Fins from signing him.
Hey - kudos to the Saints for trusting their doctors.
Saban actually wanted him, the Fins medical staff weren't sure, so I think they went with Culpepper.
Quote:
In fairness, Brees was coming off a torn labrum on his throwing shoulder that scared off Saban & the 'Fins from signing him.
Hey - kudos to the Saints for trusting their doctors.
Saban actually wanted him, the Fins medical staff weren't sure, so I think they went with Culpepper.
Yup. Imagine if Brees had gone to the 'Fins & been the Brees he was in NOLA. Saban probably never leaves.
Quote:
Wilson was drafted as a flier in the same offseason they gave Matt Flynn huge money.
Indeed, the Seahawks were able to get TWO QB's in one offseason without spending a top pick.
I'm not against the Giants drafting a QB at #2 by ANY means, but I don't agree with the notion that's the only way they'll get a quality one who can man the team for the next 10 years.
I agree there is no easy way to predict who will succeed. The RBs in the SB were nothing special, so do we need barkley? The two best rookie RBs last year were taken in round 3. OL have been found in every round and UDFA pool as well. Is Chubb that much of a difference maker.
Ill put it another way. If we were to grade all the played on 1-10. And lets just say Barkley, Nelson, and Chubb graded out 9.5 and Rosen/Darnold graded out as 8.5. Is that too much of a gap? Even though the value of a QB is much higher than any other position?
I dont have an answer, just thought aout this earleir today.
Quote:
The 2006 Saints were coming off a 3-13 season and drafted 2nd. Imagine how much worse a team they would have been (and likely still would be) if they'd drafted Vince Young or Matt Leinart instead of signing Drew Brees.
Well, gee, that was't a tough call for the Saints. Brees was 27 in 2006 with a proven track record of high level NFL production...
Whether it was a tough call for them isn't germane to the argument. The point is, a QB of his caliber became available via a method having nothing to do with spending a top-15 pick. Had another team beaten them to it, or if he wasn't available for some other reason, they probably would have taken Young or something and would have regretted it. Or, perhaps they would have stuck with Aaron Brooks for another year, finished poorly enough to take the top-ranked QB the following year (Jamarcus Russell), and regretted that.
Here's the way I see it: more importantly than drafting the right QB or the best overall player, a team just needs either consistently competent management, or they just need to make the right moves more often than not for a few years in a row. Drafting an elite QB by itself won't circumvent that requirement.