Tom Rock @TomRock_Newsday
The days of setting the franchise back a decade with a whiff at a first-round QB are over. Miss badly? Big whoop. Try again in 2-3 years. Keep swinging until you hit. Embrace the inexact nature of the evaluation process and maximize your chances.
49ers, Eagles have done just fine after big misses. Bears and Jets trying to do same. Can’t win in NFL without elite QB play, so why waste time with good but not elite quarterbacks?
If I had an NFL franchise I would never sign a quarterback to a second contract without a SB appearance in the first four years. Once you find that guy hold on to him for dear life. But if you don’t have that guy… Next!
Elite QBs help, but you still need to be dominant in multi-facets of the game.
I don’t agree with one every year as Terps suggests. I agree with every 2-3 so you always have a pipeline of guys you are working with.
Their problem may be more inside the building, no?
Plus the whole concept of “the giants would be taking the 4th best QB” thing that is supposedly some big negative…yet no one care if they take the 3rd best WR.
QB hell isn’t getting a QB pick wrong, QB hell is refusing to acknowledge the mistake.
You have to figure it out as soon as 2 years in.
If you are convinced you got the right guy, build around him. If not, cut bait and try again.
In the modern NFL, a perfectly reasonable approach.
Hopefully, our current brain trust understands this.
We will know Thursday night.
If you have a first ballot hall of fame QB your chances of winning the SB go up enourmously - Mahomes, Brady, P. Manning, Rodgers, Big Ben arguably Eli. Over the last 25 years those six people have won something like 70% of the SBs. Guys how have won not on that list - Dilfer, Johnson, Brees, Wilson, Foles, Flacco, Strafford. I see that as one guy who probably should be on the first list, 1 guy who was great for a short while, two good to really good QBs but not elite, one marginal starter, and two guys who are not starter caliber QBs. So you have roughly 7 guys who have been drafted (two first picks, a 10th pick, a 26th pick, a 2nd rounder, a 3rd rounder, and a 6th rounder) who you are trying to get. If you try every draft it would be quite reasonable to go the rest of your life and not hit.
If there is a guy available who you think can be the guy available at anytime in the draft you take him. But you can't continually structure your draft around trying to find the guy. You have to build a team and hope to get lucky or get it right at some point, or build a good enough team to make a run without an elite guy.
Had a lot of other pieces in place.
Exactly what the Giants do not.
Bills shouldn't have paid Allen. Chargers shouldn't have paid Herbert. The Ravens shouldn't be paying Jackson the most money, again. There's a line drawn, and I get what he's saying, but a SB appearance isn't it. Playoff performance is something I'd pin super importance to, and not regular season success. Your Lamar, Dak, Kirk, and previously before the Rams, Stafford's of the world.
I do agree the Giants should be swinging more. But your chances are less by not taking them in the 1st round. You lose value by trading back up and trading away future, premium assets.
Their best player was a RB who was a top 8 pick. Maybe we should try it again ;)
Haha
And they haven't won more than 7 games in a season since drafting Darnold and haven't appeared in a playoff game since Mark Sanchez was QB 14 years ago.
the article is full of contradictions.
and using the Jets as an example of how missing on QB isn't that bad is downright laughable since practically everyone on the planet thinks that team is a playoff team with a functional QB.
If you have a first ballot hall of fame QB your chances of winning the SB go up enourmously - Mahomes, Brady, P. Manning, Rodgers, Big Ben arguably Eli. Over the last 25 years those six people have won something like 70% of the SBs. Guys how have won not on that list - Dilfer, Johnson, Brees, Wilson, Foles, Flacco, Strafford. I see that as one guy who probably should be on the first list, 1 guy who was great for a short while, two good to really good QBs but not elite, one marginal starter, and two guys who are not starter caliber QBs. So you have roughly 7 guys who have been drafted (two first picks, a 10th pick, a 26th pick, a 2nd rounder, a 3rd rounder, and a 6th rounder) who you are trying to get. If you try every draft it would be quite reasonable to go the rest of your life and not hit.
If there is a guy available who you think can be the guy available at anytime in the draft you take him. But you can't continually structure your draft around trying to find the guy. You have to build a team and hope to get lucky or get it right at some point, or build a good enough team to make a run without an elite guy.
Your logic is flawed. You have other picks to build up the team. But the game within the game in the NFL is to obtain an elite QB. Without obtaining a top QB, you are fighting over table scraps. Prime example: the NYG 2017-2023. How do you like what you've seen?
By using his logic would you not resign Josh Allen?
True, the Browns (being the Browns) have not executed this with even 1% of the intelligence as the 9'ers or the Eagles. But it doesn't negate the strategy.
One person who gets his driver's license and abruptly drives into a lake doesn't negate the benefit of driving.
There is also a big difference between taking a QB at your pick and massively trading up for one. Do the latter and get it wrong and you will set your team back by five years because of the loss of draft capital.
And they haven't won more than 7 games in a season since drafting Darnold and haven't appeared in a playoff game since Mark Sanchez was QB 14 years ago.
the article is full of contradictions.
and using the Jets as an example of how missing on QB isn't that bad is downright laughable since practically everyone on the planet thinks that team is a playoff team with a functional QB.
The Jets example is incomplete, but I think Rock included them because they're a franchise that has moved on from two highly-drafted QBs fairly quickly. They just haven't yet found an adequate answer at the position, but the overall result in not doing so likely isn't any worse than it would have been had they kept Darnold or Wilson.
Not what he’s saying at all
Quote:
The new Browns have been running that approach for the last 25 years and counting through various methods (draft, trades, big free agent contracts) and hasn't worked.
True, the Browns (being the Browns) have not executed this with even 1% of the intelligence as the 9'ers or the Eagles. But it doesn't negate the strategy.
One person who gets his driver's license and abruptly drives into a lake doesn't negate the benefit of driving.
They haven’t and yet have still won more games since 2018 (50) than the Giants (34), have more playoff appearances and the same amount of playoff wins.
Eli is an interesting exception of getting to the SuperBowl after the first contract. (Since 2000, I think Warner and Ben are the only others, not mentioned here, to get to a SB on a second contract. Apologies if I'm wrong about that)
Eli is an interesting exception of getting to the SuperBowl after the first contract. (Since 2000, I think Warner and Ben are the only others, not mentioned here, to get to a SB on a second contract. Apologies if I'm wrong about that)
Matt Ryan
In the modern NFL yeah probably.
Since Stefanski and Berry have taken over, they've been a very solid team. Berry was with them between 2016-2018 too and probably had a hand in selecting Baker Mayfield. Maybe he wasn't a Stefanski guy, so they moved on. Baker finds success elsewhere and the Browns are force fed the rapist because their owner wanted him.
If the Browns had a semi decent QB play, then they would be Super Bowl contenders. Defense is fantastic and making plays like trading 5th rounders for Amari Cooper. Their move for Jerry Jeudy is nice, day 3 picks, however paying him 3 years and $41M guaranteed is bunk. Great pieces altogether though.
Would you call it fair to pay Watson what he wanted? I wouldn't, and we don't need hindsight to prove that right.
I'd say not necessarily throwing top 10 picks at it every year, but every year a new QB should be in the mix. Either eventually you find a guy, you find a better guy, or you find a guy you can flip for more picks.
Now - if the economics levels out, and a mid-tier QB is willing to take a mid-tier contract that doesn't kill the cap, this strategy could be revised. The problem is, you don't want a Daniel Jones situation at all cost.
Oops.
Let's compare the NFL from 30 years ago to today to find a fallacy in this approach.
That's like saying it's a good idea to draft a RB number 1 because Bo Jackson was the first overall pick in 1986.
Stop being stuck in the past.
Thankfully we're on year 6 of Daniel Jones, we couldn't be any luckier!
+1. Great QB is ideal, but there are very few of them. Dominating the LOS is at least as important.
If you have a first ballot hall of fame QB your chances of winning the SB go up enourmously - Mahomes, Brady, P. Manning, Rodgers, Big Ben arguably Eli. Over the last 25 years those six people have won something like 70% of the SBs. Guys how have won not on that list - Dilfer, Johnson, Brees, Wilson, Foles, Flacco, Strafford. I see that as one guy who probably should be on the first list, 1 guy who was great for a short while, two good to really good QBs but not elite, one marginal starter, and two guys who are not starter caliber QBs. So you have roughly 7 guys who have been drafted (two first picks, a 10th pick, a 26th pick, a 2nd rounder, a 3rd rounder, and a 6th rounder) who you are trying to get. If you try every draft it would be quite reasonable to go the rest of your life and not hit.
If there is a guy available who you think can be the guy available at anytime in the draft you take him. But you can't continually structure your draft around trying to find the guy. You have to build a team and hope to get lucky or get it right at some point, or build a good enough team to make a run without an elite guy.
Why do you say Big Ben and then “arguably” Eli? Eli was at least as good as the rapist.
Either they were on a second contract or they were signed to one later by their team or by the SB winner (Eli, Mahomes, Brady, Ben all in the latter side of this - they all won SB's on their rookie deal, but also won SB's on their 2nd contracts).
Almost no SB winning QB just won on a rookie deal and then was let go.
no precedent, no historical basis, no success or track record for what is being suggested.
Even if you look at QB's like Stafford who won after signing their second contract but were traded. it's still not what some of you are suggesting.
Even the outlier examples like Nick Foles still don't fit the don't pay QB narrative.
The only arguments you can make against a 2nd contract are players like Joe Flacco I guess. He got paid after winning a SB, and was MVP, but rosters often suffer after winning a SB because everyone gets "amplified" and paid more - not just QB's.
Either way it's a ridiculous concept to simply have a blanket no QB 2nd contract except for...when you can never be sure of the except for conditions until you find out.
This is made even more ludicrous because the Favre - Rodgers or Montana - Young pipelines are beyond rare. you put yourself in spot from paying a QB to needing a QB and I'd rather pay the QB I have then have to find one on the hopes of "it's just 2-3 years of shittiness if we're wrong then we can just look again" it doesn't have to be a decade. Well guess what 2-3 years can be 3-4 and then two misses and where you are? almost at a decade.
Some of you deserve bad football teams run by stupid people.
Just by the nature of the game QBs have a shorter leash. See Rosen, Darnold, Mayfield, Wilson, etc. That's not some new or noteworthy theory. However, extending it to the extreme that the QB must reach the Super Bowl in the 1st 4 years is just stupid
2013 - Pick 19 - Geno Smith
2014 - Pick 12 - Johnny Manziel
2015 - Pick 9 - Garrett Grayson
2016 - Pick 10 - Paxton Lynch
2017 - Pick 23 - Deshone Kizer
2018 - Pick 2 - Sam Darnold
2019 - Pick 6 - [Daniel Jones was selected, Dwayne Haskins next QB]
2020 - Pick 4 - Tua Tagovailoa
2021 - Pick 20 - Kyle Trask
2022 - Pick 5 - Kenny Pickett
2023 - Pick 24 - Will Levis
Plain and simply, this approach does not work. The best QB on that list is Tua, and given his struggles his first couple of years, the advocates of this strategy probably would have wanted to get rid of him. You have a more realistic chance of winning a SB by building a great team around an above-average QB. Following this strategy would be disastrous for the roster of any team.
Just by the nature of the game QBs have a shorter leash. See Rosen, Darnold, Mayfield, Wilson, etc. That's not some new or noteworthy theory. However, extending it to the extreme that the QB must reach the Super Bowl in the 1st 4 years is just stupid
Wrong. The point is to keep looking until you find a guy worth paying. Herbert is worth paying.
DAL has the best OL in history or one of them with Tyron Smith, Frederick, Martin and Collins.
Plus they had Prescott (on a rookie deal) and did they even win a playoff game?
You need an OL that is a fact, but your OL investment HAS GOT TO come from other sources than the top of the draft or you will probably not win because it means you ignored positions where the premium talent generally does come from the top of the draft.
Titans another example of a good OL, good enough to help the team compete, but their lack of players elsewhere (QB) limited their outcomes to "just" being competitive - if that's your goal great, but it takes a lot breaking right to win a SB in that scenario (luck IOW).
What’s your point? What you’re saying reinforces that fact. You can’t help if the Browns keep picking the wrong QB’s every time, but the theory isn’t flawed. Their scouting of the QB is. And Tom Rocks theory is all the more reason why the Browns are a mess. They would’ve been much better off drafting another QB instead making one of the worst trades in NFL history on top of signing Watson to the worst contract in NFL history.
2013 - Pick 19 - Geno Smith
2014 - Pick 12 - Johnny Manziel
2015 - Pick 9 - Garrett Grayson
2016 - Pick 10 - Paxton Lynch
2017 - Pick 23 - Deshone Kizer
2018 - Pick 2 - Sam Darnold
2019 - Pick 6 - [Daniel Jones was selected, Dwayne Haskins next QB]
2020 - Pick 4 - Tua Tagovailoa
2021 - Pick 20 - Kyle Trask
2022 - Pick 5 - Kenny Pickett
2023 - Pick 24 - Will Levis
Plain and simply, this approach does not work. The best QB on that list is Tua, and given his struggles his first couple of years, the advocates of this strategy probably would have wanted to get rid of him. You have a more realistic chance of winning a SB by building a great team around an above-average QB. Following this strategy would be disastrous for the roster of any team.
I hear your point, but why not invert the question regarding what QBs we missed out on over the years?
Kirk Cousins in 2012, Derek Carr in 2014, Dak in 2016, Jackson and Allen in 2018, Herbert and Hurts in 2020, Purdy in 2022.
I don't think all these guys are capable of winning Super Bowls (nor would be as good with NYG as they are with their current teams)--but there is QB talent to be had and the Giants haven't taken the requisite shots on net.
Acquiring a QB with SB winning potential requires a lot of luck. To your point, it's low probability.
They can't have every team without a top 5 QB tanking until they get one.
League over.
The still need teams putting their best foot forward, and they want the QBs to be highly paid celebrities. It's part of the business model.
Quote:
If they Giants had picked the quarterback who went next in the draft for each of their first round picks since 2013, these would have been the picks:
2013 - Pick 19 - Geno Smith
2014 - Pick 12 - Johnny Manziel
2015 - Pick 9 - Garrett Grayson
2016 - Pick 10 - Paxton Lynch
2017 - Pick 23 - Deshone Kizer
2018 - Pick 2 - Sam Darnold
2019 - Pick 6 - [Daniel Jones was selected, Dwayne Haskins next QB]
2020 - Pick 4 - Tua Tagovailoa
2021 - Pick 20 - Kyle Trask
2022 - Pick 5 - Kenny Pickett
2023 - Pick 24 - Will Levis
Plain and simply, this approach does not work. The best QB on that list is Tua, and given his struggles his first couple of years, the advocates of this strategy probably would have wanted to get rid of him. You have a more realistic chance of winning a SB by building a great team around an above-average QB. Following this strategy would be disastrous for the roster of any team.
I hear your point, but why not invert the question regarding what QBs we missed out on over the years?
Kirk Cousins in 2012, Derek Carr in 2014, Dak in 2016, Jackson and Allen in 2018, Herbert and Hurts in 2020, Purdy in 2022.
I don't think all these guys are capable of winning Super Bowls (nor would be as good with NYG as they are with their current teams)--but there is QB talent to be had and the Giants haven't taken the requisite shots on net.
Acquiring a QB with SB winning potential requires a lot of luck. To your point, it's low probability.
Following this strategy, Allen would have been dumped after his first couple of years when he struggled. None of those guys on the list except Herbert came into the league as first rounders and had success immediately, which this strategy demands. There just aren't enough elite quarterbacks out there to make this strategy worth it.
DAL has the best OL in history or one of them with Tyron Smith, Frederick, Martin and Collins.
Plus they had Prescott (on a rookie deal) and did they even win a playoff game?
You need an OL that is a fact, but your OL investment HAS GOT TO come from other sources than the top of the draft or you will probably not win because it means you ignored positions where the premium talent generally does come from the top of the draft.
Titans another example of a good OL, good enough to help the team compete, but their lack of players elsewhere (QB) limited their outcomes to "just" being competitive - if that's your goal great, but it takes a lot breaking right to win a SB in that scenario (luck IOW).
It actually reinforces the point. Having a good OL in place you can actually see how good the QB is. Dak is the absolute perfect example. He’s had a great OL and he’s played pretty well but he’s really not that good and still not good enough to win playoff games. So you know it’s a QB problem, not the other way around. You can have a really good young QB but if he’s running for his life and gets his butt kicked to the point he loses confidence he might never recover.
You at least need a solid/dependable OL.
I’m not saying pass on a generational talent like Peyton, Luck, or a legit highly graded franchise QB to pick a OL instead but if you do the next order of business is getting a good OL around him whether it starts in free agency prior to the draft and the next few picks in the draft. I’m giving my QB the best chance to succeed. If he still can’t, move on. That’s kind of his point.
Either they were on a second contract or they were signed to one later by their team or by the SB winner (Eli, Mahomes, Brady, Ben all in the latter side of this - they all won SB's on their rookie deal, but also won SB's on their 2nd contracts).
Almost no SB winning QB just won on a rookie deal and then was let go.
no precedent, no historical basis, no success or track record for what is being suggested.
Even if you look at QB's like Stafford who won after signing their second contract but were traded. it's still not what some of you are suggesting.
Even the outlier examples like Nick Foles still don't fit the don't pay QB narrative.
The only arguments you can make against a 2nd contract are players like Joe Flacco I guess. He got paid after winning a SB, and was MVP, but rosters often suffer after winning a SB because everyone gets "amplified" and paid more - not just QB's.
Either way it's a ridiculous concept to simply have a blanket no QB 2nd contract except for...when you can never be sure of the except for conditions until you find out.
This is made even more ludicrous because the Favre - Rodgers or Montana - Young pipelines are beyond rare. you put yourself in spot from paying a QB to needing a QB and I'd rather pay the QB I have then have to find one on the hopes of "it's just 2-3 years of shittiness if we're wrong then we can just look again" it doesn't have to be a decade. Well guess what 2-3 years can be 3-4 and then two misses and where you are? almost at a decade.
Some of you deserve bad football teams run by stupid people.
amen - this is perfectly stated.
if we are also talking about things that probably have no reality based historical reference, i'd also wager never has a team taken a QB in the first round they didnt like (like say malik willis) and had it pay off. nobody is wasting top 10 picks on QBs disposably just because picking QBs is all that matters.
if you are in position to take a top qb prospect and you dont have one, you do it. i guess tom rock thinks that's a theory but i think it used to be called common sense. 5 years ago josh rosen didnt stop the cards from drafting kyler murray a year later. when peyton manning's health was uncertain the colts took luck.
Quote:
In comment 16476805 Cyrus the Great said:
Quote:
If they Giants had picked the quarterback who went next in the draft for each of their first round picks since 2013, these would have been the picks:
2013 - Pick 19 - Geno Smith
2014 - Pick 12 - Johnny Manziel
2015 - Pick 9 - Garrett Grayson
2016 - Pick 10 - Paxton Lynch
2017 - Pick 23 - Deshone Kizer
2018 - Pick 2 - Sam Darnold
2019 - Pick 6 - [Daniel Jones was selected, Dwayne Haskins next QB]
2020 - Pick 4 - Tua Tagovailoa
2021 - Pick 20 - Kyle Trask
2022 - Pick 5 - Kenny Pickett
2023 - Pick 24 - Will Levis
Plain and simply, this approach does not work. The best QB on that list is Tua, and given his struggles his first couple of years, the advocates of this strategy probably would have wanted to get rid of him. You have a more realistic chance of winning a SB by building a great team around an above-average QB. Following this strategy would be disastrous for the roster of any team.
I hear your point, but why not invert the question regarding what QBs we missed out on over the years?
Kirk Cousins in 2012, Derek Carr in 2014, Dak in 2016, Jackson and Allen in 2018, Herbert and Hurts in 2020, Purdy in 2022.
I don't think all these guys are capable of winning Super Bowls (nor would be as good with NYG as they are with their current teams)--but there is QB talent to be had and the Giants haven't taken the requisite shots on net.
Acquiring a QB with SB winning potential requires a lot of luck. To your point, it's low probability.
Following this strategy, Allen would have been dumped after his first couple of years when he struggled. None of those guys on the list except Herbert came into the league as first rounders and had success immediately, which this strategy demands. There just aren't enough elite quarterbacks out there to make this strategy worth it.
I don't see why Allen would be dumped? He was drafted as a projected, progressed significantly from year to year 2 before blossoming in year 3. The Bills taking Hurts, for example, in 2020 wouldn't have changed anything.
And I disagree on worth it. Of the eight longest tenured HC's, all but Shanahan have had elite QB play at some point in their tenure. The Eagles with Foles and Broncos with a deteriorating Manning are probably the only ones to win SBs without elite QB play in recent memory.
Quote:
In comment 16476828 BrettNYG10 said:
Quote:
In comment 16476805 Cyrus the Great said:
Quote:
If they Giants had picked the quarterback who went next in the draft for each of their first round picks since 2013, these would have been the picks:
2013 - Pick 19 - Geno Smith
2014 - Pick 12 - Johnny Manziel
2015 - Pick 9 - Garrett Grayson
2016 - Pick 10 - Paxton Lynch
2017 - Pick 23 - Deshone Kizer
2018 - Pick 2 - Sam Darnold
2019 - Pick 6 - [Daniel Jones was selected, Dwayne Haskins next QB]
2020 - Pick 4 - Tua Tagovailoa
2021 - Pick 20 - Kyle Trask
2022 - Pick 5 - Kenny Pickett
2023 - Pick 24 - Will Levis
Plain and simply, this approach does not work. The best QB on that list is Tua, and given his struggles his first couple of years, the advocates of this strategy probably would have wanted to get rid of him. You have a more realistic chance of winning a SB by building a great team around an above-average QB. Following this strategy would be disastrous for the roster of any team.
I hear your point, but why not invert the question regarding what QBs we missed out on over the years?
Kirk Cousins in 2012, Derek Carr in 2014, Dak in 2016, Jackson and Allen in 2018, Herbert and Hurts in 2020, Purdy in 2022.
I don't think all these guys are capable of winning Super Bowls (nor would be as good with NYG as they are with their current teams)--but there is QB talent to be had and the Giants haven't taken the requisite shots on net.
Acquiring a QB with SB winning potential requires a lot of luck. To your point, it's low probability.
Following this strategy, Allen would have been dumped after his first couple of years when he struggled. None of those guys on the list except Herbert came into the league as first rounders and had success immediately, which this strategy demands. There just aren't enough elite quarterbacks out there to make this strategy worth it.
I don't see why Allen would be dumped? He was drafted as a projected, progressed significantly from year to year 2 before blossoming in year 3. The Bills taking Hurts, for example, in 2020 wouldn't have changed anything.
And I disagree on worth it. Of the eight longest tenured HC's, all but Shanahan have had elite QB play at some point in their tenure. The Eagles with Foles and Broncos with a deteriorating Manning are probably the only ones to win SBs without elite QB play in recent memory.
Josh Allen's ANY/A for his first two seasons was 5.16, Daniel Jones' over his first two seasons was 5.15. The same people advocating for this strategy were calling for Jones to be gone after year 2.
I'm not downplaying the effect of elite QB play, all I'm saying is that this strategy isn't likely to get you there anytime soon.
Bills shouldn't have paid Allen. Chargers shouldn't have paid Herbert. The Ravens shouldn't be paying Jackson the most money, again. There's a line drawn, and I get what he's saying, but a SB appearance isn't it. Playoff performance is something I'd pin super importance to, and not regular season success. Your Lamar, Dak, Kirk, and previously before the Rams, Stafford's of the world.
I do agree the Giants should be swinging more. But your chances are less by not taking them in the 1st round. You lose value by trading back up and trading away future, premium assets.
Playoff performance, excluding losing to the eventual SB champions that season, is how I'd set one of multiple important markers.
The idea is you can’t draft a guy, take 5 years to think about what you might have, and then be left in the lurch the Giants are now which is to pay a poor player because you don’t have another option.
After 2-3 years of Jones, the only thing that was obvious was that the Giants had not clearly solved their QB position. They should have been taking a shot with someone else through the draft to give them options. Even if you let jones walk after year 4, you have another rookie QB to try out while you look for the next guy. You don’t end up signing a below average player to a lucrative extension that has aged badly before they filed it with the NFL.
When you think that you have your guy and give the player a big contract that mandates they will be there for years, and you're wrong, it sets your franchise back even further than simply drafting him did. So by that logic sure, it's easy to say don't sign a QB to a second contract unless you're sure. problem is they were sure.
So the flaw is all in scouting and talent evaluation - which is kind of what these people (front offices and coaches) are paid to do.
If you draft the right guy to begin with, barring injury, your franchise is not in this situation every 3-4 years.
There is a good interview with the Chiefs GM (Brett Veach) with Kevin Harvik and his thoughts on how this should work and he highlights also how hard the pick 'em and ditch 'em approach actually is. (I coined that not him) but it's what he means. I like this whole interview even the racing stuff, but the relevant content begins at around the 16:45 mark.
link - ( New Window )
Quote:
by that standard, the Chargers should move on from Herbert. Good luck finding a QB that approaches his talent.
Just by the nature of the game QBs have a shorter leash. See Rosen, Darnold, Mayfield, Wilson, etc. That's not some new or noteworthy theory. However, extending it to the extreme that the QB must reach the Super Bowl in the 1st 4 years is just stupid
Wrong. The point is to keep looking until you find a guy worth paying. Herbert is worth paying.
People are getting hung up in the idea to cut bait if no Super Bowl appearance in the first 4 years part of Rock’s comment. He shouldn’t have included it as the general premise is solid.
Not bad if you do your homework and draft wisely. If you draft like the Browns draft QBS, not so good.
Like Browning Nagle or Dan McGwire.
Who?
Exactly.
I don’t think it’s that cut and dry . But it is persuasive . Does it matter that the Cowboys ran three consecutive 12-5 s with Dak but never advanced to even the conference championship ? Should they have paid him all that money ? Tough questions . I hope the Giants get this pick right Is all .
What's true today has been true since 2019: Daniel Jones is a backup-level NFL quarterback.
In this CBA there are 3 kinds of quarterbacks:
1. The guy you pay because you think you can win a title with him.
2. The guy you just drafted that you hope turns into a category 1 quarterback. If you don't feel good about this guy after year 2, he likely isn't the guy and it's time to try again.
3. Everybody else.
We would be better off with Willis, Corral, or any number of recently drafted quarterbacks than we would be with Jones at $40M a year. Assuming Willis and Corral don't pan out, they're just cheaper versions of Jones.
It's smart to draft quarterbacks at some point in the draft every year. Most won't hit, but with good scouting and good coaching (which I believe we have) you might end up snagging a Brock Purdy. When that happens the entire outlook of your timeline shifts in a positive way and it can smooth over some significant previous errors or misses.
The inverse is paying a backup JAG like Jones real starter money...a foolish move that clearly they didn't fully believe in (hence the out after 2024). They should have listened to their instincts and let him walk. Have to wonder how ownership weighed in on that score. Does Daboll look like a guy that wants Jones as his quarterback? Hmmm...
Fortunately this is a strong QB draft. Have the Giants learned something or will it be 2017-2018 all over again?
Abandon sentimentality. Jones isn't good. He never has been. I just hope this doesn't cost us Schoen and/or Daboll, who I think are part of the solution.
Link - ( New Window )
Just by the nature of the game QBs have a shorter leash. See Rosen, Darnold, Mayfield, Wilson, etc. That's not some new or noteworthy theory. However, extending it to the extreme that the QB must reach the Super Bowl in the 1st 4 years is just stupid
It is beyond stupid.
It's apparent good Old Tom has rock-for-brains.
SO Josh Allen and Lamar Jackson should've been dumped too? And once they get dumped, who would want those bums anyway? LMAO.
And just think if you were a Buffalo Bills season ticket holder, how psyched you'd be dumping Josh Allen for the next Mailk Willis/Kenny Picket.
And imagine some poor sap teams be forced to take Allen off Buffalo's hands having to suffer winning division year over year while only throwing for over 4,000 yards and 30 TD's?
And think of how lucky and giddy the Owner will feel with all the cash coming in knowing that he has the real Malik or Kenny vs that 30 TD bum Josh Allen.
no one, I repeat no one, pays a QB $40M a year or signs them to a second contract or drafts them with a premium pick if they don't think their QB is one of these two categories or will become that QB.
2. The guy you just drafted that you hope turns into a category 1 quarterback. If you don't feel good about this guy after year 2, he likely isn't the guy and it's time to try again....
The problem like we witnessed with Jones is they tried to blame every possible thing other than Jones. It was the OL, the play calling, the wide receivers, the TE, the running game, then there were injuries that complicated things (meaning if he's healthy maybe he will be good).
so what you make sound so simple is in fact not, and it's not easy. Which is why FO's fall back to the easier option of consistency and any football coach will tell you consistency and routine are important to success and that consistency means signing your current QB and loading it up with hopium.
when moving on should by all right have happened sooner.
So, now you're saying the same people who just signed Jones to a contract should pick the next QB and it will be different.
Just seems so random and it shouldn't be, it should be more deliberate and there should be more accountability.
your observation re daboll having decided jones shows why QB decisions and Head coach decisions are intertwined. we all agree finding qbs is hard, without the right coach it's got to be even harder. dan quinn at 2 and jerod mayo at 3 are not only tasked with getting the draft evaluations right but hiring the right coordinators and installing the right offensive systems for success. those teams getting those qb decisions right is first and foremost a question of whether or not they got those coaching hires right. surely the odds of their picks working out or not varies greatly if either is the next nathaniel hackett or demeco ryans.
from when Daboll got hired, here are what the other new coaches did at QB:
2022 hires
1. McDaniel inherited Tua, got the best out of him, tough extension decision now (i would not envy $50m+ per year for tua)
2. O'Connell got pretty good mileage out of Cousins, now trying to move up for same guys NYG supposedly want
3. Pederson inherited/improved Lawrence, another tricky extension decision
4. Bowles 1 year of brady, did good with mayfield, but now had to pay him like jones and lost canales
5. Dennis Allen paid carr after a year of dalton/jameis, probably on hot seat
6. Eberflus punted the decision on Bryce + Stroud, now gets Caleb, probably on hot seat
7. josh mcdaniel dumped carr, signed jimmy g, got fired in year 2
8. Lovie Smith fired after 1 year
9. Nathaniel Hackett traded for russ, fired after 1 year
2023 hires
1. gannon inherited kyler, looks like he's going to stick with him at least 1 more year
2. reich went big for bryce and got fired already
3. payton went red wedding on russ, 2024 starting qb unknown
4. steichen took AR15 and he got hurt right away, did well with minshew
5. ryans one of the few defensive coaches on this list of all people nailed stroud
counting daboll that is 15 new coaches and 1 of them succeeded at "finding the guy" (so far).
other than the 2 coaches above who drafted a top 5 QB the rest fall into 3 broad categories:
a) in this same draft as NYG trying to pick QBs (5 or 6?)
b) already fired (4)
c) sticking with whatever they inherited (4)
7 more new coaches in 2024.
bottomline finding quality coaches and quality qbs are 2 independently low probability events so trying to do both right in the same 2-3 year cycle is trying to thread a needle. most teams have trouble doing even 1 of those things right.
if i were an owner who just invested a few $bn in an nfl franchise there is basically no philosophy id trust. id try like hell to spend as much as possible hiring the best experienced HC i could get like harbough or payton thinking they have a much better chance of not getting fired within their first 24 months.
Quote:
Example
Let's compare the NFL from 30 years ago to today to find a fallacy in this approach.
That's like saying it's a good idea to draft a RB number 1 because Bo Jackson was the first overall pick in 1986.
Stop being stuck in the past.
You want a current example. What about Matt Stafford?
Sic burn!!
Daboll should get so, so much credit for pulling Jones from the brink, to legitimate starter over the course of 19 games.
Firing Daboll because they didn't have the courage to upgrade at QB would be the single biggest tragedy in the Mara era.
It took 3 swings to get it right with the coach. At least take the 2nd swing with the QB.
Daboll should get so, so much credit for pulling Jones from the brink, to legitimate starter over the course of 19 games.
Firing Daboll because they didn't have the courage to upgrade at QB would be the single biggest tragedy in the Mara era.
It took 3 swings to get it right with the coach. At least take the 2nd swing with the QB.
Upgrading at QB doesn't guarantee a coach's safety, as Shurmer can attest. Or Frank Reich.
Reich did not pick Young. That was all Tepper. Reich was the fall guy - 100%.
Quote:
Of Josh Llen because he has not got them to SB. Wow
Not what he’s saying at all
Jessie a Qb wou didn't get to the Subsrbow should get a2nd contract. Hes a moron. And so is Go Terps
Quote:
(again, slower this time) with that philosophy is it requires talent evaluation that eludes many front offices.
your observation re daboll having decided jones shows why QB decisions and Head coach decisions are intertwined. we all agree finding qbs is hard, without the right coach it's got to be even harder. dan quinn at 2 and jerod mayo at 3 are not only tasked with getting the draft evaluations right but hiring the right coordinators and installing the right offensive systems for success. those teams getting those qb decisions right is first and foremost a question of whether or not they got those coaching hires right. surely the odds of their picks working out or not varies greatly if either is the next nathaniel hackett or demeco ryans.
from when Daboll got hired, here are what the other new coaches did at QB:
2022 hires
1. McDaniel inherited Tua, got the best out of him, tough extension decision now (i would not envy $50m+ per year for tua)
2. O'Connell got pretty good mileage out of Cousins, now trying to move up for same guys NYG supposedly want
3. Pederson inherited/improved Lawrence, another tricky extension decision
4. Bowles 1 year of brady, did good with mayfield, but now had to pay him like jones and lost canales
5. Dennis Allen paid carr after a year of dalton/jameis, probably on hot seat
6. Eberflus punted the decision on Bryce + Stroud, now gets Caleb, probably on hot seat
7. josh mcdaniel dumped carr, signed jimmy g, got fired in year 2
8. Lovie Smith fired after 1 year
9. Nathaniel Hackett traded for russ, fired after 1 year
2023 hires
1. gannon inherited kyler, looks like he's going to stick with him at least 1 more year
2. reich went big for bryce and got fired already
3. payton went red wedding on russ, 2024 starting qb unknown
4. steichen took AR15 and he got hurt right away, did well with minshew
5. ryans one of the few defensive coaches on this list of all people nailed stroud
counting daboll that is 15 new coaches and 1 of them succeeded at "finding the guy" (so far).
other than the 2 coaches above who drafted a top 5 QB the rest fall into 3 broad categories:
a) in this same draft as NYG trying to pick QBs (5 or 6?)
b) already fired (4)
c) sticking with whatever they inherited (4)
7 more new coaches in 2024.
bottomline finding quality coaches and quality qbs are 2 independently low probability events so trying to do both right in the same 2-3 year cycle is trying to thread a needle. most teams have trouble doing even 1 of those things right.
if i were an owner who just invested a few $bn in an nfl franchise there is basically no philosophy id trust. id try like hell to spend as much as possible hiring the best experienced HC i could get like harbough or payton thinking they have a much better chance of not getting fired within their first 24 months.
So, Nick Caserio (the GM) didn't pick Stroud? But Ryans (the coach) did? From what I have read Ryans was more instrumental in trading back up for Anderson.
i dont think a gm (or owner) is going completely against their head coach, but if they do like bw seems to allege happened with reich/carolina/bryce then that will likely end in someone getting fired quickly because the organization isnt on the same page. i believe there were pretty reliably confirmed rumors that was the case with gruden/haskins as well (in part even from gruden himself).
it is hard enough to get QB picks right in perfect conditions.
the best nfl head coaches make a lot more money than nfl gms for a reason - they have the more important job. the same is not true in other sports. a lot of the best NFL head coaches outrank the GM to start with.
in ryans case he was not only presumably a big voice in the pick but also the reason bobby slowek came over from SF, and the reason their system was the same shanahan offense that has succeeded not only in SF with Purdy but also with LAR and MIA (tua) and GB (love). so both directly influenced the pick and the performance each gameday.
Otherwise why have a GM, why don't you see more HC/GMs.
is there any? Was Belichick the last one? Holmgren was I believe in Seattle, anyone else.
and if you have a GM who just basically defers to the HC, what's the point?
I'm not saying the coach isn't consulted, nor am I saying that the more aligned coach and GM are the better chance at success but I believe ultimately the responsibility lies with the GM for making the pick. So saying "Ryans nailed the Stroud pick" IMO is probably a reach. I would say Caserio nailed Stroud pick with input/agreement from Ryans. Maybe it's subtle or in your mind a distinction without a difference, but I think it matters.
If Stroud was a massive failure I think Caserio loses his job, and based on the team record eventually Ryans may too, but he wouldn't have the same tarnish that Caserio does. Even as you intimate the coach has the most influence over QB success.
The Jets have a 40 year old QB only because they guy became available and the young QB they drafted couldn't even display pro reliability in PRACTICE. And now what will the Jets do? They will go all in with that same 40 year old QB and shit the bed when the old man breaks in half this season. Some plan.
Teams don't invest big resources in the QB position unless they absolutely need to. Right or wrong that's how teams operate. Tom Rock didn't break any new ground with the Niners or Jets approach. Not at all.
Find me the team that spends big draft resources on QB one year into the next and I will find you the first, since JJ in Dallas did it in the late 80s with Aikman and Walsh. It simply doesn't happen.
Quote:
by that standard, the Chargers should move on from Herbert. Good luck finding a QB that approaches his talent.
Just by the nature of the game QBs have a shorter leash. See Rosen, Darnold, Mayfield, Wilson, etc. That's not some new or noteworthy theory. However, extending it to the extreme that the QB must reach the Super Bowl in the 1st 4 years is just stupid
Wrong. The point is to keep looking until you find a guy worth paying. Herbert is worth paying.
How the hell is Herbert worth paying yet Trevor Lawrence isn't.
Herbert hasn't won anything out there in cushy and cozy SD/LA.
You don't have to answer, it was rhetorical. Point is, lol.
Otherwise why have a GM, why don't you see more HC/GMs.
is there any? Was Belichick the last one? Holmgren was I believe in Seattle, anyone else.
and if you have a GM who just basically defers to the HC, what's the point?
I'm not saying the coach isn't consulted, nor am I saying that the more aligned coach and GM are the better chance at success but I believe ultimately the responsibility lies with the GM for making the pick. So saying "Ryans nailed the Stroud pick" IMO is probably a reach. I would say Caserio nailed Stroud pick with input/agreement from Ryans. Maybe it's subtle or in your mind a distinction without a difference, but I think it matters.
If Stroud was a massive failure I think Caserio loses his job, and based on the team record eventually Ryans may too, but he wouldn't have the same tarnish that Caserio does. Even as you intimate the coach has the most influence over QB success.
andy reid fired the gm and got control first thing in KC.
belichek was both HC and gm.
pete carroll had final say on personnel in seattle over schneider.
sean payton i can tell you for certain is fully in control in denver.
jim harbough basically hired his own gm.
the top coaches outrank the gm because that's the way the whole process works best. i think parcells mantra became accepted as the right way, not the george young way where the gm makes the picks and the head coach has to deal with it.
shanahan as well with the trey lance trade/then purdy decision. i believe shanahan actually chose lynch as his gm in the first place as well.
bottomline i think almost all veteran head coaches ascend beyond the GM not just because they are paid 2-3x as much but because their role in the process is more important.
the GMs that have a more substantial say are the teams that employ first time head coaches who arent proven but as we've seen here in all the giant life episodes after the fact daboll and schoen are connected at the hip. i believe the trendy buzzword is "alignment".
Going into 1992, he needed a QB and considered Favre the best player in the 1991 draft, where he was selected by Atlanta.
So, Wolf made a trade to acquire him.
In the subsequent nine years after executing that trade, Wolf still drafted a QB in eight of those years despite having a HoF QB. Here are the notable QBs he drafted: Ty Detmer (9th round), Mark Brunell (5th round), Matt Hasselbeck (6th round) and Aaron Brooks (4th round).
That's a pretty damn good record finding quality QBs who started in the NFL.
Going into 1992, he needed a QB and considered Favre the best player in the 1991 draft, where he was selected by Atlanta.
So, Wolf made a trade to acquire him.
In the subsequent nine years after executing that trade, Wolf still drafted a QB in eight of those years despite having a HoF QB. Here are the notable QBs he drafted: Ty Detmer (9th round), Mark Brunell (5th round), Matt Hasselbeck (6th round) and Aaron Brooks (4th round).
That's a pretty damn good record finding quality QBs who started in the NFL.
taking day 3 shots every year is something every team should do.
purdy/dak/etc are rare but it does happen, and there are plenty of minshew/howell/devito types who will save you $5-10m a year on a backup during their rookie deals.
that said whatever happened in the 90's with any gm is basically useless. it is a totally different game.
rookie QBs actually being good right away is a brand new phenomenon. tom brady got a redshirt year. peyton struggled year 1. big ben won a super bowl but he was highly protected by pitt.
matt ryan was i think the first rookie QB who was legitimately very good right away without making a ton of mistakes, then cam newton made a pro bowl in 2011, then russell wilson, luck, and rg3 all did the same in 2012. just kept accelerating from there.
jameis actually also made a pro bowl as a rookie in 2015, wentz was good as a rookie in 2016, watson was great in 2017, baker had a great rookie year in 2018, kyler in 2019, herbert/burrow in 2020. obviously some ended up busts too, so it's pretty amazing the game got to a place where all time greats used to struggle early and now mediocre players can succeed quickly.
Quote:
for a fact, but I think most NFL front offices still operate like the Parcells days "if they want you to cook the dinner, at least they ought to let you shop for some of the groceries."
Otherwise why have a GM, why don't you see more HC/GMs.
is there any? Was Belichick the last one? Holmgren was I believe in Seattle, anyone else.
and if you have a GM who just basically defers to the HC, what's the point?
I'm not saying the coach isn't consulted, nor am I saying that the more aligned coach and GM are the better chance at success but I believe ultimately the responsibility lies with the GM for making the pick. So saying "Ryans nailed the Stroud pick" IMO is probably a reach. I would say Caserio nailed Stroud pick with input/agreement from Ryans. Maybe it's subtle or in your mind a distinction without a difference, but I think it matters.
If Stroud was a massive failure I think Caserio loses his job, and based on the team record eventually Ryans may too, but he wouldn't have the same tarnish that Caserio does. Even as you intimate the coach has the most influence over QB success.
andy reid fired the gm and got control first thing in KC.
belichek was both HC and gm.
pete carroll had final say on personnel in seattle over schneider.
sean payton i can tell you for certain is fully in control in denver.
jim harbough basically hired his own gm.
the top coaches outrank the gm because that's the way the whole process works best. i think parcells mantra became accepted as the right way, not the george young way where the gm makes the picks and the head coach has to deal with it.
Who is Brett Veach? He talks in depth about drafting Mahomes and his title is GM (since 2017 when Mahomes was drated). Sure, he was in PHI with Reid, but again, he is the GM.
You can say Reid has control privately, but who is going to take a GM job to be a yes man?
also veach wasnt GM when they picked mahomes, Dorsey was then he got fired 1 month later even though the team had been successful under him (at the time the firing was a surprise bc he was considered one of the best GMs in football).
it was reported by albert breer he was fired because he was making too many decisions non-collaboratively with coaching staff (though specifically noted the mahomes decision was a decision everyone was aligned on):
This isn’t to say there weren’t decisions that were made with a roaring consensus from the team’s football operation. One such call was the one to pursue Texas Tech quarterback Patrick Mahomes in the draft. The Chiefs moved aggressively to make it happen.
But too often, there were big moves made where scouts and coaches were left scratching their heads. It still bothers some close to Dorsey that Hunt caught wind of it, because there certainly weren’t many signs externally that the ax was about to drop. Some still maintain that it was right to keep these issues in-house, since they may have been fixable.
in philly andy reid had final say, all of the big decisions they made from mcnabb to runyan were reported as reid driven and they didnt hire an official GM until his 6th year. he was coach and vp of football ops before that.
when reid got hired in KC they blew out pioli the same day and a week later he hired dorsey to his first job as GM (they'd worked together in GB).
imo the job of anyone in a FO isnt to have final say on every decision it is to get decisions right. coaching input has a big impact on the right decisions. and when the head coach is andy reid the right decision on big decisions is almost always going to be 'whatever andy wants' because andy reid is a HOF'er and easily the 2nd best coach of his generation to belichek. even if it's the wrong decision it's the right decision because the org is better with andy than without him.
john dorsey apparently learned that lesson the hard way in 2017 and then probably again in 2019 when he got fired by the browns.
Albert Breer - The John Dorsey Dismissal: Where It Went Wrong in K.C. - ( New Window )
taking day 3 shots every year is something every team should do.
purdy/dak/etc are rare but it does happen, and there are plenty of minshew/howell/devito types who will save you $5-10m a year on a backup during their rookie deals.
that said whatever happened in the 90's with any gm is basically useless. it is a totally different game.
I wrote this out for two reasons. How smart it is to draft a QB in every year - despite the different eras - and how unbelievably good Wolf was with QB hit rate.
It's always good to keep that pipeline lined with potential QB talent because the dividend is always high if you nail it, regardless of the era.
Quote:
taking day 3 shots every year is something every team should do.
purdy/dak/etc are rare but it does happen, and there are plenty of minshew/howell/devito types who will save you $5-10m a year on a backup during their rookie deals.
that said whatever happened in the 90's with any gm is basically useless. it is a totally different game.
I wrote this out for two reasons. How smart it is to draft a QB in every year - despite the different eras - and how unbelievably good Wolf was with QB hit rate.
It's always good to keep that pipeline lined with potential QB talent because the dividend is always high if you nail it, regardless of the era.
The only reason why you say this is because you have no accountability for the silliness of the idea if ever put in motion by a nutjob GM. You can sit back in your couch and keep complaining about no QB.
You pretend like the staff will immediately know "who has talent and can execute." It's easy for you to sit home and be okay from recommending guys like Malik Willis.
Then you would have probably missed out on 2022 because you would have kept wasting picks on other worse QB's than the 2022 Jones.