I'll start off by saying I haven't paid much attention to prospects this year and I'm not advocating to take anyone in particular, but this 538 article had a chart at the bottom showing where SB Rbs were taken. I thought that was dumb because if you did the same with QBs, the only SB winning QBs taken top 5-10 in the last decade+ were the Mannings.
Then I went and looked at the QBs taken top 10 from 2008-2015 (I ignored the last 2 years because it's still early, even though I think wentz is a franchise, all-world talent, even guys like Matt Ryan and Cam had great seasons):
Winston
Mariota
Bortles
Luck
Griffin
Tannehill
Cam
Gabbert
Bradford
Stafford
Sanchez
Matt Ryan
If you could pick one of those guys, but had to stick with them for 10 years without change, would you pick any of them? If you squint maybe 2-3, so like a 15-20% chance? That's scary for a top 5 pick.
And I don't think the worst situation is getting Locker or Gabbert and giving up on him after 2-3 years. I think the worse situation is getting Bortles or Tannehill and committing to him beyond his rookie deal because "who else would start". A smart GM would give up on the slight-above-average-QBs but a GM would lose his job for admitting he fucked up. Thats a $15M-20M a year commitment.
That list looks cherry-picked without Wentz, but Philly traded up for him when they thought he was ready. Houston traded up for Watson. Not saying thats fail proof, it's not, but there's also doing the FA route where you set yourself up. Like Denver did with Peyton, or MIN did with Cousins (though most here would prolly use that as an example for not going that route, just saying that's how they did it instead of trading up for one).
Also, let's see how the Rams fare when they have to pay Goff on top of paying Gurley, Donald, etc. If the Giants don't have significant success in the next 4 years, how would it get easier once they pay Darnold, Rosen, Mayfield, etc. on top of paying Odell (if he's here), Collins, Solder, etc. And by all accounts, none of these guys are consensus #1 talents like Luck and Cam were.
Can someone please convince me I'm thinking about this all wrong?
Link - (
New Window )
Your 15-20% logic only applies if DG would've made the same choices. I think half of those guys wouldn't have been considered by DG, completely changing the risk %.
For me, you need to take BPA with need being somewhat considered.
You rate guys by position but also overall to ensure that you can take a position of need while getting good value.
To me barkley or darnold should be the pick at 2. NOBODY else
In a trade down im okay with chubb or nelson.
Barkley is the best player in the draft. he can do it all. catch, run, pass protect. he is CLEAN off the field. a good teammate and seemingly a cant miss(no such thing)
Darnold was a turnover machine in college but has alot of tools and is still VERY young. moving to his right and throwing on the run he looks like rodgers and IMO he is going to be special as he has "it"
I am happy with either and IMO those two should be the top two picks in the draft. Nelson and chubb arent far behind at all though therefore a small trade down im good with either.
Again, not a perfect science. QBs can flop and have....its very possible 3 of the 4 big ones this year bust.
Mariota
Luck
Cam
Stafford
Matt Ryan
??
That's the beauty of the rookie wage scale. You can cut bait and not set your franchise back years.
Plus we have Webb, who many have deamed the air apparent, so if the 1st rounder doesn't workout, Webb can save us ;)
Quote:
I'll start off by saying I haven't paid much attention to prospects this year
makes me want to stop right there.
Your 15-20% logic only applies if DG would've made the same choices. I think half of those guys wouldn't have been considered by DG, completely changing the risk %.
So draft 1 we are giving DG the benefit of the doubt over other GMs?
I'm not a pro scout...you're not a GM. I'm just going by historic track record. I don't see how my draft analysis has any impact on pointing out past occurrences.
??
I disagree with including Winston and Mariota. Both have regressed after a good early season (seems to be a common thing).
And yes, that is a very good point. To really gauge this you would have to do the same by all positions. But I brought this up because QBs are taken high regardless of their relative talent to other positions. Other "consensus" non-QB top prospects have a seemingly higher success rate. Just look at how many non-Qb's made Pro Bowls/All Pros in the same span. I think the Vom Miller draft there were like 6-7 pro bowlers in the top 10 (non QBs)
That's the beauty of the rookie wage scale. You can cut bait and not set your franchise back years.
Plus we have Webb, who many have deamed the air apparent, so if the 1st rounder doesn't workout, Webb can save us ;)
That's the beauty of the rookie wage as a hypothetical, how many GMs cut the cord early enough in practice? The QB has to be Jake Locker-bad in order to do so.
@Pep - also we can agree to disagree on Stafford. I actually think that's the worst case scenario. I don't think he's bad, he's slightly above average being paid the most money in the league. He's not going to mask your flaws but his contract hampers flexibility.
Of the 21 QB taken in the top 5 only alex smith, eli and goff all sat for about half the season then took over from there.
Jemarcus Russell didnt play until december but he held out until the season started.
Everyone else was a started from week 1 or very early in the season.
Sitting a top 5 QB just doesn't happen. Would be a mistake I think, too.
Of the 21 QB taken in the top 5 only alex smith, eli and goff all sat for about half the season then took over from there.
Jemarcus Russell didnt play until december but he held out until the season started.
Everyone else was a started from week 1 or very early in the season.
Sitting a top 5 QB just doesn't happen. Would be a mistake I think, too.
Why is this too high of a pick to use on someone you deem a franchise caliber QB just because they sit a year?
Quote:
this is too high of a pick for that. I went back to like 2001 and looked. There wasn't 1 QB taken in the top 5 that did not play at all in the 1st year.
Of the 21 QB taken in the top 5 only alex smith, eli and goff all sat for about half the season then took over from there.
Jemarcus Russell didnt play until december but he held out until the season started.
Everyone else was a started from week 1 or very early in the season.
Sitting a top 5 QB just doesn't happen. Would be a mistake I think, too.
Why is this too high of a pick to use on someone you deem a franchise caliber QB just because they sit a year?
It certainly gives you one less year to look at the guy, which leads to a higher chance of making the wrong call come contract time. But I also doubt they'd play Eli the whole year if they did take a QB. Neither the HC nor the GM is married to him for sentimental value and the Giants might be going nowhere fast to start the year.
If they do not pick a QB, Webb is our man.
This one is the case against draft a QB at #2
https://theathletic.com/330003/2018/04/26/traina-making-a-case-against-the-giants-drafting-a-quarterback-at-no-2/ - ( New Window )
Why? Because it is a crap shoot irrespective of where you pick in the draft. The top ten projected quarterbacks may have higher predictable floors, but their ceilings are no more predictable than quarterbacks taken anywhere in the draft...
Why? Because it is a crap shoot irrespective of where you pick in the draft. The top ten projected quarterbacks may have higher predictable floors, but their ceilings are no more predictable than quarterbacks taken anywhere in the draft...
This is my line of thinking. You need luck at any point of the draft, but historically, teams that get "lucky" with QBs in later rounds have better success (especially once they have a good team in place already).
Eli Manning, Ben, Rivers, Rodgers, Peyton Manning, Favre, Simms, Aikman.
That’s just off the top of my head.
Two of the all-time great running backs:
Barry Sanders, 10 seasons Lions, playoffs 5 times, won 1 playoff game
Adrian Peterson , 8 seasons Vikings, playoffs 4 Times, won 1 playoff game
Quarterbacks lift teams to the playoffs and to the Super Bowl.
Running backs are a luxury pick who wear down after five or six years.
Eli Manning, Ben, Rivers, Rodgers, Peyton Manning, Favre, Simms, Aikman.
That’s just off the top of my head.
Two of the all-time great running backs:
Barry Sanders, 10 seasons Lions, playoffs 5 times, won 1 playoff game
Adrian Peterson , 8 seasons Vikings, playoffs 4 Times, won 1 playoff game
Quarterbacks lift teams to the playoffs and to the Super Bowl.
Running backs are a luxury pick who wear down after five or six years.
Big Ben wasnt a consensus star (picked 11)
Rodgers wasn't a consensus star (picked 30th)
Farve wasn't a consensus star (2nd round pick)
Rivers doesn't have postseason success and there was a big hooplah in SD about having to trade Eli for him.
Teams are far more likely to find a RB after the first round then they are a franchise QB.
In comment 13934329 ajr2456 said:
Quote:
this is too high of a pick for that. I went back to like 2001 and looked. There wasn't 1 QB taken in the top 5 that did not play at all in the 1st year.
Of the 21 QB taken in the top 5 only alex smith, eli and goff all sat for about half the season then took over from there.
Jemarcus Russell didnt play until december but he held out until the season started.
Everyone else was a started from week 1 or very early in the season.
Sitting a top 5 QB just doesn't happen. Would be a mistake I think, too.
Why is this too high of a pick to use on someone you deem a franchise caliber QB just because they sit a year?
??
Because taking a QB that doesn't work out can set your team back 50 years...
And if there's no consensus #1 QB, you can't take a QB...
And because all the QBs have red flags and the player I like doesn't have any...
And did I mention Josh Rosen's concussions? It's far too risky to take the best QB in the draft because he might get hurt. I'd much rather take Barkley because RBs never get hurt and they have really long careers.