Figured we could address this notion once and for all here.
While those who espouse this notion point to failed QBs like Daniel Jones as examples of how drafting a QB to start on a bad team is likely to “ruin” the QB, history shows the QB was probably bad/mediocre to begin with and good QBs are not similarly affected by landing on a bad team. Further, the logic just does not compute given the realities of the salary cap, NFL draft and fan/media/ownership/player expectations.
Let’s dive in:
1) History does not support this notion. Examples of wildly successful QBs drafted into bad teams include P. Manning, Elway, Aikman, Stroud and many others. Regarding the QBs that failed on their bad team, there is no support for the argument they were good to begin with. Just as likely they were simply flawed prospects whose flaws were exposed at the pro level like so many other players regardless of what kind of team drafts them.
2) This notion does not take into consideration the realities of the roster building in the salary cap era. It is so hard to pay and keep all of your good players, assuming you are good/fortunate enough to accumulate them. By the time you are “ready” to draft your QB, your window with the current roster is small if there is one. Once players come up for free agency, you have to start making tough choices and you struggle to maintain the same talent level. Not to mention….
3) It’s damn hard to find several pro-bowl type players and then land your franchise QB. I don’t know how many times that’s actually been done, if ever. SF is the example I hear thrown around every now and then but they whiffed on Lance and the book is still out on Purdy. And they still haven’t won anything.
4) Good teams draft typically later. This is an easy one. Unless you trade your way into the top 10 in a good QB class, your chance of hitting on a franchise QB is very low. And good teams - even those with mediocre QBs - tend to draft later.
5) Good teams are under pressure to win now. As hard as it is resetting things with a rookie AB, it’s even harder when you’re a playoff team or borderline playoff team. Pressure is on to win now and even the players get pissed when you reset in that situation (not to mention the fan/media pressure). It is just a tougher call for the GM to make - that first round pick could be a WR, OL, Edge, CB, etc., that fans/media/players view as the “last piece” of the puzzle.
Thoughts?
My caveat is that you can't throw a young QB into an absolute mess. I look at our OL last year, if you put a rookie QB behind the center in the first 6 games, you would have ruined him. So you need some sort of stability before putting them in, but drafting and red shirting them is a way around this.
If we think someone at 6 is a franchise QB, we should not pass on them.
I would bet other well run franchises would have handled things differently than the Jets did. It shouldn't have been that difficult in recognizing the place holder Qb wasn't moving the needle.
My caveat is that you can't throw a young QB into an absolute mess. I look at our OL last year, if you put a rookie QB behind the center in the first 6 games, you would have ruined him. So you need some sort of stability before putting them in, but drafting and red shirting them is a way around this.
If we think someone at 6 is a franchise QB, we should not pass on them.
To add some clarity, I was referring to 1st round picks for 2021 and 2022. I understand San Fransisco got lucky with Purdy as Mr. Irrelevant.
Rams with Stafford
Philly and Hurts
Brady and the Bucs
Theres a lot of ways to build a team. But I do agree getting the QB when he is available is the way to go and we are at the point where we definitely need one ASAP.
Rams won with Stafford but their build up to the SB started with.... selecting Goff 1.1
Goff got them to a SB and got paid.
Not really the point. And they averaged under 20PPG in the 09 postseason. They averaged about 23 PPG in 2010 postseason. Sanchez didn't do anything remarkable in either run. He just didn't screw up.
Point is the Jets only run of success with a young QB came when EVERYONE knew the roster was good. There was no debate. And the QB they succeeded with was literally the lowest ranked QB they drafted out of the 3-4 other first rounders they drafted over the last 15 seasons.
You don't have to like it. But it's a fact.
Jones can be a massive failure here with NYG and it can be his own doing AND you need a good team to help develop most QBs. Both things can be true.
Yep very true. 2004 Giants were bad but the situation was one of growth and legit staying power potential.
Jones can be a massive failure here with NYG and it can be his own doing AND you need a good team to help develop most QBs. Both things can be true.
The 49ers haven’t been able to get over the hill despite having good rosters going back to the Kaepernick/Smith days.
The Chiefs had a good roster but didn’t get over the hill until they got Mahomes.
Same with the Rams and Bucs. There’s a better chance of a highly rated QB carrying a mediocre roster to a Super Bowl win than a bad QB getting carried by a top end roster to a Super Bowl. Building a roster and finding a QB not bad enough to screw you is a lot harder than finding a top end QB and building a mediocre roster imo.
Jones can be a massive failure here with NYG and it can be his own doing AND you need a good team to help develop most QBs. Both things can be true.
Who doesn’t think the Giants need a good roster? I don’t think anyone has said that.
Quote:
it's just weird.
Jones can be a massive failure here with NYG and it can be his own doing AND you need a good team to help develop most QBs. Both things can be true.
Who doesn’t think the Giants need a good roster? I don’t think anyone has said that.
Oh. Ok. I mean....yea...no one ever said that lol.
I feel like this is partially a cop out. Other bad teams have had no issue moving on from their QB
Then you look back on the Manning trade and both Super Bowl runs, you realize you need to reset the QB position and that it will NOT be the only reason you win a championship.
Trying to nail down the timing of when to get a young QB or a new QB may come down to opportunity. The Giants drafted Philip Rivers and traded him and 3 other picks for Eli and it worked out.
The Giants signed Kerry Collins as a reclamation project and he had 2 really good seasons and getting us to the Super Bowl, that almost worked out.
The Giants traded for YA Tittle. We went to a few championship games but always came up short.
Timing and luck never hurt in these situations. The timing right now with picking this high in the draft and having viable talent at the QB position is an opportunity to improve the QB room.
With luck, the Giants get the rignt QB and hopefully don't have to give up too many picks or players. But if it turns out to be the right guy, it will be worth it.
QB is the most important and toughest position in the NFL. His level of play is also predicated on the most team orientated sport in the world. It matters.
Show me one example of a QB sucking on one team and being great on another. Let alone being great and winning a superbowl on another. Doesn’t happen.
Guys like Hostetler or Dilfer - who don’t fit that bill but who did game manage their way to a SB on a stacked team win are the once-a-decade or generation exception. And they still were never great QBs - flashes in the pan whose teams never saw success with them again.
Still haven’t seen examples of good QBs being “ruined” on bad teams. David Carr gets brought up but I think the problem is he was flawed from the get go. We’ve seen him on other teams since and he’s sucked. Plenty of examples of good QBs going to bad teams and turning them around though.
Bottom line, if we think one of the available QBs is a good one, we should draft him and forget about the fact that the team is still a major work in progress.
I have a good feeling that Year 10 of Daniel Jones could be a big one.
It really is that simple.
If you're picking near the top and it's a strong QB draft, go get him.
Yes, he may bust. But when the opportunity presents, at least try.
But I can sure find examples of bad football teams drafting a QB as soon as they are available to.
No one with any decision-making power has ever passed on a QB they believed in because the team wasn't set.
They won in the playoffs because Nate Kaeding missed two chip shot game winning field goals .
It's a lot harder for *us* as fans. I strongly disagree that it's harder for the coaches and evaluators. You can always evaluate quarterbacks independent of their circumstances. You *have to do this* when you're evaluating quarterbacks on bad college teams.
Brian Daboll certainly knows when the QB is playing well despite not having what you think of as good WRs or blocking, or a running game, because he knows the reads on every play that the QB is supposed to make, and he knows the expected outcomes and the possible decisions a QB has to make on any given play or situation. Fans may not have the experience to make that call but this is what coaches are paid to do.
The point is not to reach for a QB in the top 10 and thereby pass up the chance to take a top flight player at another position. Based on the prior 7 drafts, there’s a better than 50-50 chance of drafting a QB in the top 10 who busts to one degree or another. So if you take one, you better be right.
Quote:
play to a certain level in one place only to play to a completely different level somewhere else. Jeff Hostettler was a super bowl winning QB with NYG. He was a placeholder in Oakland. Stafford was a prolific but losing QB in DET then wins big in LA. Brady takes over for a decent QB playing for a good team and turns that team into a great one because he was better than the guy he replaced. The guy he replaced gets worse the minute he left the well run confines of New England. HE no longer wins more games than he loses as he did prior to leaving NE. Plunkett was a loser before Oakland/LA. Then he retires a 2 time super bowl winner.
QB is the most important and toughest position in the NFL. His level of play is also predicated on the most team orientated sport in the world. It matters.
Show me one example of a QB sucking on one team and being great on another. Let alone being great and winning a superbowl on another.
Steve Young
The grade is the grade though. They aren’t going to be taking a QB with a second round grade at 6 so it all comes back to getting the pick right. I don’t think the risk is that high.
How many bonafide QB1s are available via trade?
This is obviously because they're more rare which of course causes ppl to remind everyone QB prospects may bust. But this applies to every position so why discuss it?
The roster does need to get better, and every position is easier to upgrade relative to QB. We're at 6 which makes it easier to draft a good QB prospect. Saying you can do the same thing from the middle 1st is not realistic
A lot of you guys are smart and know this, I think you just want to argue lol
Just about every Superbowl winning QB has a star TE, WR or RB or combination of multiple positions.
There is no issue with trading up to get the QB, the issue is that the Giants skill positions are the worst in the league or if you want to argue its bottom 5.
So, with nothing available in FA, really no trade ammo if we trade up for a QB and a somewhat tight cap situation where is this star skill position player coming from? Trading away next years #1 possibly for a QB is silly. We probably will be in a similar situation as Carolina with the #1 overall going to Chicago. When Chicago traded with us for Fields we traded #10 and got #7. How did Chicago do?
So where is the star power coming from? The QB needs at least one weapon to take the pressure off and make a play. If we stay at 6, we can at least take a stab at a WR in round 2. If we trade up, most likely round 2 is gone and next years 1. Again limited FA money and no guarantees there is a good FA option. There wasnt one this year.
As others have said there are many ways to build a team. I dont think trading away assets when we have no skill positions filled is a good way to go. yes you can hit on them later but we have a lot of holes. Jones contract is going to eat the cap this year and next and we dont know if the injury guarantee will kick in either.
So if I saw a need for a qb down the road I would make sure I had a good o line.
Just as the Giants did not do.
So, with nothing available in FA, really no trade ammo if we trade up for a QB and a somewhat tight cap situation where is this star skill position player coming from?
The answer is "It's not going to all get done in one year". It's that simple. The idea that it can be is nuts.
They traded to get Eli Manning.
In 2005, they spent money for McKenzie and Burress and drafted Brandon Jacobs, Justin Tuck and Corey Webster.
That's building a team. I don't know why we're overcomplicating this or overthinking it.
Quote:
So, with nothing available in FA, really no trade ammo if we trade up for a QB and a somewhat tight cap situation where is this star skill position player coming from?
The answer is "It's not going to all get done in one year". It's that simple. The idea that it can be is nuts.
They traded to get Eli Manning.
In 2005, they spent money for McKenzie and Burress and drafted Brandon Jacobs, Justin Tuck and Corey Webster.
That's building a team. I don't know why we're overcomplicating this or overthinking it.
Look at how the Bills did it as well: First they drafted Allen. The next year they focused on o-line, then in Josh's third year the brought in Diggs
Rams with Stafford
Philly and Hurts
Brady and the Bucs
Theres a lot of ways to build a team. But I do agree getting the QB when he is available is the way to go and we are at the point where we definitely need one ASAP.
Manning to broncos
Flacco to ravens
Russell Wilson Seahawks
Dak and Dallas
Goff and Detroit
Favre to Minnesota
Rodgers to jets?
Warner to Arizona
It is much smarter to build the roster and not force the qb. Once you land a qb even if mediocre that cheap contract allows you to retain your star players and acquire free agents and you can get very far with less at QB. If you draft a franchise guy then your scrambling to get a roster together before he’s paid
Did winning 6 games and winding up picking #6 not make this clear?
Go ahead and stink, get the high draft picks and get your QB when the opportunity presents itself.
Quote:
KC with Mahomes
Rams with Stafford
Philly and Hurts
Brady and the Bucs
Theres a lot of ways to build a team. But I do agree getting the QB when he is available is the way to go and we are at the point where we definitely need one ASAP.
Manning to broncos
Flacco to ravens
Russell Wilson Seahawks
Dak and Dallas
Goff and Detroit
Favre to Minnesota
Rodgers to jets?
Warner to Arizona
It is much smarter to build the roster and not force the qb. Once you land a qb even if mediocre that cheap contract allows you to retain your star players and acquire free agents and you can get very far with less at QB. If you draft a franchise guy then your scrambling to get a roster together before he’s paid
Some of these are bad examples.
Can anyone name a team whose GM waited 3 years for the team to be set before trying to upgrade QB? I can’t think of one.
There is no 100% logic to this and a lot of it is luck and the right time at the right place.
There is no 100% logic to this and a lot of it is luck and the right time at the right place.
There's some value in this, but the cowboys were 3-15 in Irvin's rookie season, and 1-15 in Aikman's rookie season. The cowboys were by no means a "finished roster".
Quote:
Could argue that both Aikman and Peyton were drafted into situations where they had Hall if Fame receivers on the roster already with both Irvin and Marvin Harrison drafted before them.
There is no 100% logic to this and a lot of it is luck and the right time at the right place.
There's some value in this, but the cowboys were 3-15 in Irvin's rookie season, and 1-15 in Aikman's rookie season. The cowboys were by no means a "finished roster".
Absolutely, the Hershel Walker trade sure helped too. Quarterbacks also took longer to develop back then not coming from a pro style offense in college.