Would they be good value at that position?
1. If so, then we should just take them now. Because if we don't take a QB now then that's where we'll likely be drafting when we do need a QB.
2. If a 2nd round pick this year is the same (value) as a 1st next year, then the converse is true. Getting someone on the roster now is better then getting them on the roster a year later. So it's ok to draft someone sooner if we can get them now.
3. Who cares about the "extra" picks we could pick up by trading down. We're talking about the guy that touches the ball every play, calls every protection, checks out when necessary. This is the most important position.
Hell, if I were the Browns I'd be tempted to draft QB at 1 and 4 and get two of these guys on rookie contracts. Let competition determine who is the franchise. Way more important than a RB.
Like, ever.
We'll be stuck with Dave Brown all over again forever.
I've seen it in my dreams.
The Rams, Eagles etc. are good examples of having 5 years of cost control at the position (far less than 20+) and thus greater spending potential elsewhere.
Learn from either or both circumstances.
The Rams, Eagles etc. are good examples of having 5 years of cost control at the position (far less than 20+) and thus greater spending potential elsewhere.
Learn from either or both circumstances.
Tavon Austin was their 2nd highest player last year.
Cap space doesn't always mean a team will spend wisely.
Do I win something? Hello...is this thing on???
If you don't have that confidence, you look at other options, whether it is a different player or a trade down.
Speculating the worth of the QB if they represent the 16th pick or the 145th pick is a waste.
The Rams, Eagles etc. are good examples of having 5 years of cost control at the position (far less than 20+) and thus greater spending potential elsewhere.
Learn from either or both circumstances.
O C'mon. Those teams are going to have to pay out. In two years the Giants may have a young cheap QB and the Eagles' and Rams' bills may come due. That is not because those teams have poor/great wisdom, it is because they drafted well at QB recently.
Pep22 : 3:30 pm : link : reply
Currently, we're spending 20mm+ on a guy that is a bottom third QB production/talent wise. He's aging...it happens.
The Rams, Eagles etc. are good examples of having 5 years of cost control at the position (far less than 20+) and thus greater spending potential elsewhere.
Learn from either or both circumstances.
Aren't the Eagles and Rams two of only four teams currently in cap hell?? Don't think I'd use them as a model to follow.
Quote:
Another key point
Pep22 : 3:30 pm : link : reply
Currently, we're spending 20mm+ on a guy that is a bottom third QB production/talent wise. He's aging...it happens.
The Rams, Eagles etc. are good examples of having 5 years of cost control at the position (far less than 20+) and thus greater spending potential elsewhere.
Learn from either or both circumstances.
Aren't the Eagles and Rams two of only four teams currently in cap hell?? Don't think I'd use them as a model to follow.
Happen to notice what the Rams did this offseason?
The Eagles have already had a few cap casualties.
If you don't have that confidence, you look at other options, whether it is a different player or a trade down.
Speculating the worth of the QB if they represent the 16th pick or the 145th pick is a waste.
I agree. To me, a QB is unlike any other position in the NFL (perhaps other than kicker and punter). You intend to have only one starting QB and to play him every offensive play of every game of every year he's on your team, barring injury. Other positions -- say, defensive end --, you may take a DE at 20 who has value there, but you wouldn't take him at 10, because he doesn't have enough value to be worth the #10 pick. That is, the guy at 20 might not be an every down starter for you in every game, but he could be a situational pass rusher for you like a Barnett with Philly and can help you in that area, even if he's not as great in other areas. In other words, he can still add good value to your team, even if he's not going to be a 3 down player on defense. If you pick him inside top 5 or 10, you'll want him to be a 3 down player and a phenomenal pass rusher; otherwise you try to maximize your talent at another position. Same is true for WRs, RBs, CBs, safeties, maybe not with LT. LT is more like a QB.
With a QB, he's either your starting QB of the future or he's not. And if he's not, he's definitely not worth drafting in the first round, or in my view, any high round. I'd rather sign a competent back up with experience in free agency than use draft capital on a guy in late first, the second or third round who i don't have clear conviction will be my starter. Yes there's a 1 in 1000 chance of getting a Joe Montana or Brett Favre or Russell Wilson or Jimmy G (although the jury is still out on the last 2), but the chances are really small. If you're going to take a starting QB, you really want to get one in the top 3-5 picks in the draft because if you draft a guy in the mid or late first round -- unless he had a highly unexpected drop in the first round for somewhat unexplainable reasons (like Aaron Rodgers did) -- it usually means that a lot of QB-needy teams didn't see him as a future starting QB and you probably shouldn't either. Patrick Mahomes was the #10 pick, and he seems to be working out well so far. Maybe he's a bit of an outlier, but he's at least still a top 10 pick. Once you get beyond that, you are usually looking at QBs who are reaches to become longtime starting QBs in the NFL.
Louis Riddick on ESPN today redid the top ten picks from the 2015 draft. Interestingly, he only made three changes. He moved 1) Todd Gurley from the Rams at ten to the Jaguars at third, 2) David Johnson from the Cardinals at #86 to the Giants at ninth and 3) Melvin Gordon from the Chargers at fifteen to the Rams at ten.
Two points from someone who I think will be a very good GM in the NFL some day. First, the only reach in the top ten was the Giants and Ereck Flowers. The Jaguars selected Dante Fowler third, but he has had unfortunate injuries. And Second, three running backs in the top ten in hindsight!
Best Player Available includes running backs even in the NFL in 2018.
1. If so, then we should just take them now. Because if we don't take a QB now then that's where we'll likely be drafting when we do need a QB.
But then you have the opportunity cost of losing a player who will likely be #1 or #2 on our board versus a player who is in the #12-#15 range. Is the extra year of a QB in the system worth that drop in talent and that higher rated player getting an extra year in our system?
2. If a 2nd round pick this year is the same (value) as a 1st next year, then the converse is true. Getting someone on the roster now is better then getting them on the roster a year later. So it's ok to draft someone sooner if we can get them now.
You still run into the problem that is a #1 or #2 with an extra year worth a #12-#15 with one fewer year as that is what you lose.
3. Who cares about the "extra" picks we could pick up by trading down. We're talking about the guy that touches the ball every play, calls every protection, checks out when necessary. This is the most important position.
If our top QB could be had later on and get extra picks why not? What would our franchise have been had we not traded up for Manning and instead traded to 7 for Ben Roethlisberger and had extra picks plus the 1st Rounder the following year that became Shawne Merriman.
Hell, if I were the Browns I'd be tempted to draft QB at 1 and 4 and get two of these guys on rookie contracts. Let competition determine who is the franchise. Way more important than a RB.
That would be incredibly stupid because one of the players definitely won't play and if it is because he noticeably stinks you will never get anywhere close to the same value back in a trade. Plus you lose the opportunity to fill another need with a top talent.
Louis Riddick on ESPN today redid the top ten picks from the 2015 draft. Interestingly, he only made three changes. He moved 1) Todd Gurley from the Rams at ten to the Jaguars at third, 2) David Johnson from the Cardinals at #86 to the Giants at ninth and 3) Melvin Gordon from the Chargers at fifteen to the Rams at ten.
Two points from someone who I think will be a very good GM in the NFL some day. First, the only reach in the top ten was the Giants and Ereck Flowers. The Jaguars selected Dante Fowler third, but he has had unfortunate injuries. And Second, three running backs in the top ten in hindsight!
Best Player Available includes running backs even in the NFL in 2018.
Agreed you can't reach for a player. But with a QB, you think he's either capable of being a franchise QB or he's not. If you have him at a 92 grade and Barkley at a 94 grade, do you really not take into account the importance of the position and the rarity of ever being able to get even an 88 grade QB again? I would agree you should never take your 88 grade QB in the top of the first round; I wouldn't even take him mid-first round, most likely, because an 88 grade basically means you're not sure he'll be your starting qb of the future. I would just skip him altogether unless he falls to fourth round or so. But if you're talking about a 94 or 95 grade RB vs a 92 grade QB, knowing you likely won't ever have another shot at a QB anywhere near that highly rated for several years, I think you have to take the importance of the position into account, as well as the scarcity of the commodity. Nobody had Wentz and Goff as the highest rated players in their draft. But they were highly enough rated that the teams believed they could be their franchise QB who they could build a great team around.
I'm not totally devaluing RB position either. I went nuts when the Giants drafted Flowers over Gurley. I thought Gurley was the best RB prospect since AP and Flowers was drafted almost solely on potential rather than performance. The issue there though was that the grade differential between those guys should have been far greater than the Giants obviously had them at. That was just poor evaluation that was based almost solely on projection with too little consideration for past performance. It's not like Flowers has proven to be a 90 LT and Gurley is a 93 RB. Gurley is a 93 RB and Flowers looks like a 75 LT at best, hopefully a better RT.
Reese just didn’t like to move.
Other than out of his office at MetLife...
Quote:
If Barkley is still on the board at #16, you take Barkley. He is a better graded talent than Rosen. If Ereck Flowers hasn't taught us this lesson, then we will never learn.
Louis Riddick on ESPN today redid the top ten picks from the 2015 draft. Interestingly, he only made three changes. He moved 1) Todd Gurley from the Rams at ten to the Jaguars at third, 2) David Johnson from the Cardinals at #86 to the Giants at ninth and 3) Melvin Gordon from the Chargers at fifteen to the Rams at ten.
Two points from someone who I think will be a very good GM in the NFL some day. First, the only reach in the top ten was the Giants and Ereck Flowers. The Jaguars selected Dante Fowler third, but he has had unfortunate injuries. And Second, three running backs in the top ten in hindsight!
Best Player Available includes running backs even in the NFL in 2018.
Agreed you can't reach for a player. But with a QB, you think he's either capable of being a franchise QB or he's not. If you have him at a 92 grade and Barkley at a 94 grade, do you really not take into account the importance of the position and the rarity of ever being able to get even an 88 grade QB again? I would agree you should never take your 88 grade QB in the top of the first round; I wouldn't even take him mid-first round, most likely, because an 88 grade basically means you're not sure he'll be your starting qb of the future. I would just skip him altogether unless he falls to fourth round or so. But if you're talking about a 94 or 95 grade RB vs a 92 grade QB, knowing you likely won't ever have another shot at a QB anywhere near that highly rated for several years, I think you have to take the importance of the position into account, as well as the scarcity of the commodity. Nobody had Wentz and Goff as the highest rated players in their draft. But they were highly enough rated that the teams believed they could be their franchise QB who they could build a great team around.
I'm not totally devaluing RB position either. I went nuts when the Giants drafted Flowers over Gurley. I thought Gurley was the best RB prospect since AP and Flowers was drafted almost solely on potential rather than performance. The issue there though was that the grade differential between those guys should have been far greater than the Giants obviously had them at. That was just poor evaluation that was based almost solely on projection with too little consideration for past performance. It's not like Flowers has proven to be a 90 LT and Gurley is a 93 RB. Gurley is a 93 RB and Flowers looks like a 75 LT at best, hopefully a better RT.
It is a very fair point and I completely understand the argument. No doubt that quarterback is the most important position in the game and maybe in all of sports. But lets be clear - a 92 grade is below guys like Winston, Gabbert and Sanchez...
The great thing about this is, we will know soon enough....
Reese just didn’t like to move.
Other than out of his office at MetLife...
Based on Njoku going after to Cleveland and Atlanta and New Orleans being linked to Engram I don't think he would have been there
Glad he is a really good TE. Just wish we didn’t need one so badly that we had to go all out last year on one. But when you ignore positions year after year like TE and LB then you get stuck having to take it in the shorts when one becomes available...
Quote:
In comment 13919366 the mike said:
Quote:
If Barkley is still on the board at #16, you take Barkley. He is a better graded talent than Rosen. If Ereck Flowers hasn't taught us this lesson, then we will never learn.
Louis Riddick on ESPN today redid the top ten picks from the 2015 draft. Interestingly, he only made three changes. He moved 1) Todd Gurley from the Rams at ten to the Jaguars at third, 2) David Johnson from the Cardinals at #86 to the Giants at ninth and 3) Melvin Gordon from the Chargers at fifteen to the Rams at ten.
Two points from someone who I think will be a very good GM in the NFL some day. First, the only reach in the top ten was the Giants and Ereck Flowers. The Jaguars selected Dante Fowler third, but he has had unfortunate injuries. And Second, three running backs in the top ten in hindsight!
Best Player Available includes running backs even in the NFL in 2018.
Agreed you can't reach for a player. But with a QB, you think he's either capable of being a franchise QB or he's not. If you have him at a 92 grade and Barkley at a 94 grade, do you really not take into account the importance of the position and the rarity of ever being able to get even an 88 grade QB again? I would agree you should never take your 88 grade QB in the top of the first round; I wouldn't even take him mid-first round, most likely, because an 88 grade basically means you're not sure he'll be your starting qb of the future. I would just skip him altogether unless he falls to fourth round or so. But if you're talking about a 94 or 95 grade RB vs a 92 grade QB, knowing you likely won't ever have another shot at a QB anywhere near that highly rated for several years, I think you have to take the importance of the position into account, as well as the scarcity of the commodity. Nobody had Wentz and Goff as the highest rated players in their draft. But they were highly enough rated that the teams believed they could be their franchise QB who they could build a great team around.
I'm not totally devaluing RB position either. I went nuts when the Giants drafted Flowers over Gurley. I thought Gurley was the best RB prospect since AP and Flowers was drafted almost solely on potential rather than performance. The issue there though was that the grade differential between those guys should have been far greater than the Giants obviously had them at. That was just poor evaluation that was based almost solely on projection with too little consideration for past performance. It's not like Flowers has proven to be a 90 LT and Gurley is a 93 RB. Gurley is a 93 RB and Flowers looks like a 75 LT at best, hopefully a better RT.
It is a very fair point and I completely understand the argument. No doubt that quarterback is the most important position in the game and maybe in all of sports. But lets be clear - a 92 grade is below guys like Winston, Gabbert and Sanchez...
The great thing about this is, we will know soon enough....
Hmm. I can't speak to Gabbert because I just didn't pay attention to QBs that year. Winston I thought was pretty high, maybe 94, but he had some real off field concerns. His other big concern was interceptions, which are still an issue in the NFL. Sanchez I think was grossly overrated coming out of college because he was the heir to Carson Palmer and Matt Leinart at USC (who wasn't quite a bust in the NFL yet).
I could be wrong, but I would rate Rosen higher than either of those guys, and Winston, as much as I wasn't a fan of him personally, I thought he would be a really good pro QB if he could stay out of trouble. I think most evaluators seem to say the same thing -- if you take the "character" questions and injuries out of it -- I think Rosen would be the far and away top QB grade in this class -- on par with a lot of prior #1 picks. I don't buy the "character" issues at all; they're a joke compared to the concerns about Winston. The issue with Rosen is the concussions. And I think either a team decides that he's medically cleared with those or he's not. If he's not, he has to be taken off the board with the #2 pick. If he is, then I think he's the top QB by far. A lot of scouts seem to say the same thing. Watching him and Darnold play each other, it was clear Rosen was far better.
I would also rate Darnold higher than Sanchez -- I really never liked Sanchez much from the start. I wouldn't rate Darnold as high as Winston though.
No idea what to make of Allen. Boom or bust. High chance of bust, but could end up being amazing.
I don't like Mayfield. I wouldn't take a QB who lacks prototypical size in the first round -- definitely not for a bad weather team like the Giants. A dome team or a team in the south, and maybe that's a different story.