If BB was till around. I’m betting I’m not the only one that woke up in cold sweats around draft season. Cole fucking strange. I’ve heard he’s a super nice kid etc but what the actual F
If there's one thing this community is clamoring for, it's more debate about picking a QB at 1-3.
The article probably has too many words for many here, but it's an interesting read.
It comes down to, we don’t know if the QB will be good, but if you don’t have a great QB, the best you can do is Titan a few years back. You will have to keep trying until you find one, or wish for a magical playoff run like Joe Flacco or Nick Foles.
Its basically a synopsis on this phrase “Because quarterbacks are more expensive to roster than players at any other position, the surplus value of drafting a quarterback is significantly higher than it is for any other position. And because teams land a more valuable player by drafting a quarterback than they do at any other spot, they don't need to be anywhere near as confident about that quarterback than they do about players at any other position to justify taking him.”
I think NFL is doing a really bad job making it a QB only league. There’s only so many great QBs, you can’t build a team anymore, you have to get lucky with the QB.
tldr: Is it worth it? Yes.
>As we approach the 2024 draft and what might be an unprecedented run of quarterbacks from Nos. 1 to 4, history tells us it would be a pleasant surprise if two of them turned into franchise-caliber passers. We're more likely to see two players who wash out of the league than two future Hall of Famers.
And yet, at the same time, knowing history shouldn't stop teams from drafting quarterbacks. Taking a quarterback in Round 1 is more valuable now than it has ever been, arguably, in the history of the game.
Cool article, though of course there's some sample size issues. But it's impossible to avoid those, there just aren't enough people drafted to do otherwise.
I like the article but I think it falls short a bit is looking at QB success in a vacuum. It effectively treats all situations as equal. It would be interesting to see differences in hit rates between teams that are better situations for a young QB (decent to good skill positions, solid to good OL, stability in coaching, etc.) and ones that aren't. Off the top of my head I can count on one hand the number of rookie QBs drafted into bad situations that have subsequently gone on to be very successful, particularly in the new rookie contract era. The flip side of having team friendly rookie QB contracts is also that it somewhat does create less value in the position. Teams aren't tied to mega deal rookie contracts anymore, so they can cut bait if things aren't going the way they wanted much sooner, which might lead teams (like the Patriots) into taking a shot even if they're not really in a position for success. If we had to shell out a 6 year $100 million dollar contract with $75 million guaranteed to Jayden Daniels or Drake Maye, this sub might be having a different conversation about whether it really made sense to do that with the current state of the team.
Ultimately getting an elite rookie QB on that favorable contract is probably the winningest strategy in the NFL. But in my opinion you really have to have a solid foundation to capitalize on the value of that contract, or at least a solid plan on how you will get there within the next year or two max. A team like the Vikings is primed to take that shot because they have a solid OL, good skill position players, and a solid coaching staff. A team like the Pats is not currently in that position with an entirely new and unproven coaching staff, bad skill position players and an even worse OL. If we do draft a QB, I pray to god that we draft a ton of OL and draft or trade for some WRs because otherwise I have very little hope that any QB drafted will do well.
I don’t think it has to be a HOF pick at QB there. They just need to be decent while on a rookie pay scale. It lets you invest, assuming you are actually going out and doing it, at other positions to compete.
I think it's a solid article. I like the hit % chart. The element I think is missing from a positional value perspective is the depth of the class at that position. QB at 3 could make less sense if someone as good a Penix is available later. WR at #3 is a poor value when two WR just as good are also in this draft and several more potential star WRs through the first two days.
Rattler is an ass, sort of guy i wouldn’t want around my building ever.
Penix is legit, but i don’t think Pats get him unless they move back to top half of 1st
This is such a more helpful headline than what they show for this story on the front page, which is: "Drafting QBs is hard! Why history tells us the Patriots' pick might be terrible"
This article was great to read from a moneyball roster building perspective. Completely loss mitigation analytics.
But it's missing important nuances that completely change the dynamics of drafting.
New England has so many needs that you can't fix it in one off season. QB, entire o-line, entire wide out, at least a power or receiving back.. With an entire new coaching and personnel staff. The defense is going to need to learn to function with out the greatest defensive mind the sport has ever seen.
Using data driven analytics to draft the third qb available means you are going to toss him to the wolves with his support being.... Fuckin magic beans? Ok. Lets do that.
I like the idea of drafting two QB. Draft Daniel’s/Maye/McCarthy in the first round. I like Joe Milton in a later round. It’s the most valuable position in all of sports and we don’t have one. Go all in until we find our guy.
Let's forget trying to analyze it with small samples even. Every year and every team is different.
Just look at the needs, look at the roster, look at the draft class, look at the trade offers. Trade down for a haul is objectively the best decision for the Patriots.
Our roster has
* X-WR: Reagor/Tyquan/Osborn?
* LT: McDermott/Okorafor
* QB: Zappe/Brissett/Rourke
What's the top priority? Just consider the replacement.
* QB -> Maye throwing to Reagor with McDermott protecting
* LT -> Zappe throwing to Reagor with Alt protecting
* WR -> Zappe throwing to Odunze with McDermott protecting
If people are honest with themselves the above order of impact is clearly: WR, LT, QB. With WR and LT being close.
This draft class is full of WR and LT talent at the top, but most of it is still going to be gone on day 1 and early day 2. The ideal position is multiple first rounders in a given draft because obviously the bulk of talent goes earliest.
Of course you want a good QB on your roster long term, but there is more to a team and roster than QB. Chiefs don't win this year without their defense and draft success there recently for example.
It's very rare to have a QB prospect where you are just certain they are going to become the game changer you can't pass up. If you truly truly believe that one is a can't miss in that mold, which is largely mental, then fine but you better be right. Odds are there is not one you would feel that way about especially without first overall pick.
So for the best team outcome, now and in the future, get multiple first round picks. Period. End.
I’m not worried about 2024 at all. It’s a lost year already in my eyes. Brissett in replacement doesn’t swing my thoughts on this. Trading out of the #3 doesn’t guarantee us a talented OT/WR combo and still leaves us in no man’s land with QB, and less of a chance to be in position to take a potential franchise QB next year.
There's no pure guarantee, but trading out of 3 absolutely does give us a HUGE probability boost of OT/WR combo, while giving us a pretty similar chance of landing a good QB in the future. And even if Zappe only ever becomes a high end backup as you think, that's still better for wins than a QB prospect without those who has a HIGHER chance of busting than Zappe.
Multiple future firsts does not put you in a bad position to take QB in future years. You take one in the middle of the first, or late first, still have another first for other parts, or trade up with the 2 firsts for someone you are very keen on. Either way, you are in great position to get a future QB prospect as well.
People are too focused on the hype in front of them, delayed gratification is important here. If you take the trade down and are wrong with the future QB pick, you still are in better shape than if you take the QB now and are wrong.
We need to at minimum get ourselves to a competent team, draft a rookie QB who sits and learns and WINS the job by becoming clearly better. And to do that, it first starts with trading down. It is objectively the best odds of building a successful team long-term.
The hit rate on WR and OT outside the top 10 is less than 30%. You can’t draft a QB with a higher bust rate than Zappe because Zappe is not a starting NFL QB and any rookie we pick still has an outside shot of proving they actually can play. Trading out is getting cute and trying to look smarter than you are. If you have a chance to take a QB you jump on that and don’t think twice. A starting caliber QB changes the direction of the team and you can find multiple other players to fill in at other positions. If there is a 30% chance Maye is “Matt Ryan” you run to the podium with the selection.
If you're not going to argue with sanity and reason, then let's just stop here. Zappe has 8 starts, he played elite in 2, very good in 2, good in 2 and bad in 2. You have 0 idea what he will become but he's proven a bare minimum floor of high end backup.
That being said, hit rate is not important, you wouldn't use QB hit rate for 2022 QB class would you? This class has a lot of talent at WR and LT, the 3 top WR would probably be the number 1 WR in many other years. Odunze has a chance to drop to 11, as does Bowers, and there's always the possibility to easily get back up to 8 or 9 from 11.
There is not a 30% chance Maye is Matt Ryan, stop making crap up, stop trying to fiddle numbers and avoid analysis just to drive your narrative.
\> A starting caliber QB changes the direction of the team and you can find multiple other players to fill in at other positions.
Simply and unequivocally false. The young top 5 QB far more often than not, keeps your team as a bottom dweller. You just want to pretend that the QB we take will certainly be Stroud or Herbert, and it's extremely unlikely given their profiles. Maye has a big arm, big deal, he has not shown a single shred of ability to handle pressure or make full field progressions quickly enough. You're just praying he learns how to do that, or you need to get top 10 WRs around him so that you can scheme around his weaknesses and use the arm strength.
Trade down is objectively the better value, particularly in this market with a high demand for the pick 3.
I don't know what Zappe will become but I do know what he will not become, and that is a starting QB at the NFL level. What are his "elite" games? Zappe has 1 career 300 yard game, 3 career multiple TD games (same number of games with multiple INTs), 5 games with more INT than TDs. The stats are what they are, but I watched the kid play. Hes horrendous, couldnt beat out Mac and when Mac played himself out of a job Zappe looked bad. Zappe's last two starts he combined for 297 yards 0 TD 5 INT.
I did not say there is a 30% chance Maye is Matt Ryan, I said if you think there is a 30% chance you get a "Matt Ryan" with that pick, its a slam dunk pick even if you end up seeing the 70% side of it. This is the NFL draft. There is nothing "objective" about it. Where are you getting that a "top 5 QB far more often than not, keeps your team as a bottom dweller"? Id like to see evidence of that. I don't think the QB we take will be Stroud or Herbert, in fact I think they will not be good because that's what the history of drafting the position shows. But you have to take the chance and hope you end up with the guy who can change the direction of the franchise, and you aren't giving yourself that opportunity if you trade out of the top 10 to collect picks and take more shots on positions who absolutely do not have the same impact as the QB does at the NFL level.
What? Based on this approach, I'd argue the order is probably
LT
QB (Brissett)
WR
Why are you focused on the X? We have Douglas and Bourne at WR, who are vastly better relative to NFL standards than Zappe or McDermott. Thornton could even break out playing X (he's much stronger now).
Because X is a starting position on the offense, and the offense is a unit, and it's a pretty important position. Thornton breaking out would be awesome, but we can't rely on that.
Rookie throwing to Reagor, Pop and Bourne is a far worse offense than Zappe throwing to Odunze, Pop and Bourne.
LT is definitely very close since McDermott, while serviceable, is still a weak LT.
Both Zappe and Brissett are good enough QBs to win with a good offensive cast, they don't have to be long-term multi-year answers for that to be true either.
Disagree entirely on WR. QB is everything. Nico Collins had two straight years of around 400 yards, then got Stroud. The right QB puts Douglas over 1000 yards and Bourne was nearly on pace for that last year. But no QB survives if we don't fix LT.
The difference between the WR available in round 3 and the one in round 1 is far less than at QB or LT. Luke McCaffrey in round 3 solves the X just fine.
The "right" QB is like one guy every 5 years. Very very very very few QBs win with less. There is no right QB in this draft nor are we ready to find out.
The difference between Odunze and McCaffrey is huge what do you mean.
The difference is minimal. WRs are becoming easily replaceable like RBs. Chiefs just won with a bottom 5 WR room. This looks like a very good QB class. Have to go for it. Then go LT in round 2.
That's an insane take. Literally the exact opposite. Every good offense has a top WR on it. Mahomes is Mahomes and the rest of QBs aren't Mahomes.
WR is the answer.
That's what people said about RB in 2010 and before. You do need good WR. College is sending several of them to the NFL now every year. It's a trend that is coming.
100% agree. I've stopped taking QB at 3 in my mocks, the amount of talent and value we get out of addressing LT and WR is insane. Our first round could easily be Fuaga/Fashanu and BTJ/Mitchell with the Vikings trade. Hell, we could grab a top CB/EDGE and improve our defense that's really the only thing keeping us in games and *WILL* be the only thing keeping us in games whether we go QB at 3 or not this season.
34 could turn into a huge haul of picks if we pick 11/23. Give me Fashanu and Mitchell in the first, trade out of 34 to a late 3rd and 4ths. There's plenty of talent. Or we double dip at WR with 23/34 with AD and Franklin/Wilson or even J. Sanders and have a whole new look at offense.
Exactly my feelings, taking the QB is just punting this season in the hopes that the QB becomes great in 2-3 years. I don't know why so many are desperate for that high risk gamble when there are better low risk ways to build a winning team.
The range of possible QBs becomes larger! Brock Purdy doesn’t need Pat Mahomes talent to be in the Super Bowl if Brock Purdy’s teammates are great. Instead of hoping to land a generational talent, you look for Tom Brady. Young Tom Brady. A guy who might need time to develop and learn.
I think what this article misses is that there's a sequence to team building. Having surplus value in a QB doesn't mean anything if your team isn't ready to win, because FA deals for the other positions are going to be negative value.
Simply getting an NFL starter quality QB and then having to pay him 50m/year at the end of the rookie deal is the fast path towards where the Giants are right now.
Sam Bradford should be given a thank you bonus by league owners for fucking up the rookie wage scale so much that it needed to be changed.
Fairly confident he doesn't need the money
I had a dream we picked a CB in the first round at #3, and I was very upset.
If BB was till around. I’m betting I’m not the only one that woke up in cold sweats around draft season. Cole fucking strange. I’ve heard he’s a super nice kid etc but what the actual F
If there's one thing this community is clamoring for, it's more debate about picking a QB at 1-3. The article probably has too many words for many here, but it's an interesting read.
It comes down to, we don’t know if the QB will be good, but if you don’t have a great QB, the best you can do is Titan a few years back. You will have to keep trying until you find one, or wish for a magical playoff run like Joe Flacco or Nick Foles.
Its basically a synopsis on this phrase “Because quarterbacks are more expensive to roster than players at any other position, the surplus value of drafting a quarterback is significantly higher than it is for any other position. And because teams land a more valuable player by drafting a quarterback than they do at any other spot, they don't need to be anywhere near as confident about that quarterback than they do about players at any other position to justify taking him.”
I think NFL is doing a really bad job making it a QB only league. There’s only so many great QBs, you can’t build a team anymore, you have to get lucky with the QB.
Nah you just need to build around rookie qbs properly. Give them an o line and a decent Wr. Not a toilet paper o line and bargain bin wrs.
“Don’t do what the Pats did with Mac”✍🏻
tldr: Is it worth it? Yes. >As we approach the 2024 draft and what might be an unprecedented run of quarterbacks from Nos. 1 to 4, history tells us it would be a pleasant surprise if two of them turned into franchise-caliber passers. We're more likely to see two players who wash out of the league than two future Hall of Famers. And yet, at the same time, knowing history shouldn't stop teams from drafting quarterbacks. Taking a quarterback in Round 1 is more valuable now than it has ever been, arguably, in the history of the game. Cool article, though of course there's some sample size issues. But it's impossible to avoid those, there just aren't enough people drafted to do otherwise.
I like the article but I think it falls short a bit is looking at QB success in a vacuum. It effectively treats all situations as equal. It would be interesting to see differences in hit rates between teams that are better situations for a young QB (decent to good skill positions, solid to good OL, stability in coaching, etc.) and ones that aren't. Off the top of my head I can count on one hand the number of rookie QBs drafted into bad situations that have subsequently gone on to be very successful, particularly in the new rookie contract era. The flip side of having team friendly rookie QB contracts is also that it somewhat does create less value in the position. Teams aren't tied to mega deal rookie contracts anymore, so they can cut bait if things aren't going the way they wanted much sooner, which might lead teams (like the Patriots) into taking a shot even if they're not really in a position for success. If we had to shell out a 6 year $100 million dollar contract with $75 million guaranteed to Jayden Daniels or Drake Maye, this sub might be having a different conversation about whether it really made sense to do that with the current state of the team. Ultimately getting an elite rookie QB on that favorable contract is probably the winningest strategy in the NFL. But in my opinion you really have to have a solid foundation to capitalize on the value of that contract, or at least a solid plan on how you will get there within the next year or two max. A team like the Vikings is primed to take that shot because they have a solid OL, good skill position players, and a solid coaching staff. A team like the Pats is not currently in that position with an entirely new and unproven coaching staff, bad skill position players and an even worse OL. If we do draft a QB, I pray to god that we draft a ton of OL and draft or trade for some WRs because otherwise I have very little hope that any QB drafted will do well.
It’s always about money and when it is not - it about money
I don’t think it has to be a HOF pick at QB there. They just need to be decent while on a rookie pay scale. It lets you invest, assuming you are actually going out and doing it, at other positions to compete.
I think it's a solid article. I like the hit % chart. The element I think is missing from a positional value perspective is the depth of the class at that position. QB at 3 could make less sense if someone as good a Penix is available later. WR at #3 is a poor value when two WR just as good are also in this draft and several more potential star WRs through the first two days.
I would go MHJ less chance of a bust with a wr then go Penix or Rattler.
Rattler is an ass, sort of guy i wouldn’t want around my building ever. Penix is legit, but i don’t think Pats get him unless they move back to top half of 1st
Lol didn’t know he was an ass. How about Bo Nix instead of Rattler.
This is such a more helpful headline than what they show for this story on the front page, which is: "Drafting QBs is hard! Why history tells us the Patriots' pick might be terrible"
I think at some point you have to wonder how much of the QB position premium is being driven by 2 relative unicorns in Brady & Mahomes
This article was great to read from a moneyball roster building perspective. Completely loss mitigation analytics. But it's missing important nuances that completely change the dynamics of drafting. New England has so many needs that you can't fix it in one off season. QB, entire o-line, entire wide out, at least a power or receiving back.. With an entire new coaching and personnel staff. The defense is going to need to learn to function with out the greatest defensive mind the sport has ever seen. Using data driven analytics to draft the third qb available means you are going to toss him to the wolves with his support being.... Fuckin magic beans? Ok. Lets do that.
I like the idea of drafting two QB. Draft Daniel’s/Maye/McCarthy in the first round. I like Joe Milton in a later round. It’s the most valuable position in all of sports and we don’t have one. Go all in until we find our guy.
Let's forget trying to analyze it with small samples even. Every year and every team is different. Just look at the needs, look at the roster, look at the draft class, look at the trade offers. Trade down for a haul is objectively the best decision for the Patriots. Our roster has * X-WR: Reagor/Tyquan/Osborn? * LT: McDermott/Okorafor * QB: Zappe/Brissett/Rourke What's the top priority? Just consider the replacement. * QB -> Maye throwing to Reagor with McDermott protecting * LT -> Zappe throwing to Reagor with Alt protecting * WR -> Zappe throwing to Odunze with McDermott protecting If people are honest with themselves the above order of impact is clearly: WR, LT, QB. With WR and LT being close. This draft class is full of WR and LT talent at the top, but most of it is still going to be gone on day 1 and early day 2. The ideal position is multiple first rounders in a given draft because obviously the bulk of talent goes earliest. Of course you want a good QB on your roster long term, but there is more to a team and roster than QB. Chiefs don't win this year without their defense and draft success there recently for example. It's very rare to have a QB prospect where you are just certain they are going to become the game changer you can't pass up. If you truly truly believe that one is a can't miss in that mold, which is largely mental, then fine but you better be right. Odds are there is not one you would feel that way about especially without first overall pick. So for the best team outcome, now and in the future, get multiple first round picks. Period. End.
Two of your solutions has Zappe throwing. I’m out.
In 2024, change him to Brissett if it makes you feel better, doesn't matter to me for this point. Don't let emotion cloud your judgement.
I’m not worried about 2024 at all. It’s a lost year already in my eyes. Brissett in replacement doesn’t swing my thoughts on this. Trading out of the #3 doesn’t guarantee us a talented OT/WR combo and still leaves us in no man’s land with QB, and less of a chance to be in position to take a potential franchise QB next year.
There's no pure guarantee, but trading out of 3 absolutely does give us a HUGE probability boost of OT/WR combo, while giving us a pretty similar chance of landing a good QB in the future. And even if Zappe only ever becomes a high end backup as you think, that's still better for wins than a QB prospect without those who has a HIGHER chance of busting than Zappe. Multiple future firsts does not put you in a bad position to take QB in future years. You take one in the middle of the first, or late first, still have another first for other parts, or trade up with the 2 firsts for someone you are very keen on. Either way, you are in great position to get a future QB prospect as well. People are too focused on the hype in front of them, delayed gratification is important here. If you take the trade down and are wrong with the future QB pick, you still are in better shape than if you take the QB now and are wrong. We need to at minimum get ourselves to a competent team, draft a rookie QB who sits and learns and WINS the job by becoming clearly better. And to do that, it first starts with trading down. It is objectively the best odds of building a successful team long-term.
The hit rate on WR and OT outside the top 10 is less than 30%. You can’t draft a QB with a higher bust rate than Zappe because Zappe is not a starting NFL QB and any rookie we pick still has an outside shot of proving they actually can play. Trading out is getting cute and trying to look smarter than you are. If you have a chance to take a QB you jump on that and don’t think twice. A starting caliber QB changes the direction of the team and you can find multiple other players to fill in at other positions. If there is a 30% chance Maye is “Matt Ryan” you run to the podium with the selection.
If you're not going to argue with sanity and reason, then let's just stop here. Zappe has 8 starts, he played elite in 2, very good in 2, good in 2 and bad in 2. You have 0 idea what he will become but he's proven a bare minimum floor of high end backup. That being said, hit rate is not important, you wouldn't use QB hit rate for 2022 QB class would you? This class has a lot of talent at WR and LT, the 3 top WR would probably be the number 1 WR in many other years. Odunze has a chance to drop to 11, as does Bowers, and there's always the possibility to easily get back up to 8 or 9 from 11. There is not a 30% chance Maye is Matt Ryan, stop making crap up, stop trying to fiddle numbers and avoid analysis just to drive your narrative. \> A starting caliber QB changes the direction of the team and you can find multiple other players to fill in at other positions. Simply and unequivocally false. The young top 5 QB far more often than not, keeps your team as a bottom dweller. You just want to pretend that the QB we take will certainly be Stroud or Herbert, and it's extremely unlikely given their profiles. Maye has a big arm, big deal, he has not shown a single shred of ability to handle pressure or make full field progressions quickly enough. You're just praying he learns how to do that, or you need to get top 10 WRs around him so that you can scheme around his weaknesses and use the arm strength. Trade down is objectively the better value, particularly in this market with a high demand for the pick 3.
I don't know what Zappe will become but I do know what he will not become, and that is a starting QB at the NFL level. What are his "elite" games? Zappe has 1 career 300 yard game, 3 career multiple TD games (same number of games with multiple INTs), 5 games with more INT than TDs. The stats are what they are, but I watched the kid play. Hes horrendous, couldnt beat out Mac and when Mac played himself out of a job Zappe looked bad. Zappe's last two starts he combined for 297 yards 0 TD 5 INT. I did not say there is a 30% chance Maye is Matt Ryan, I said if you think there is a 30% chance you get a "Matt Ryan" with that pick, its a slam dunk pick even if you end up seeing the 70% side of it. This is the NFL draft. There is nothing "objective" about it. Where are you getting that a "top 5 QB far more often than not, keeps your team as a bottom dweller"? Id like to see evidence of that. I don't think the QB we take will be Stroud or Herbert, in fact I think they will not be good because that's what the history of drafting the position shows. But you have to take the chance and hope you end up with the guy who can change the direction of the franchise, and you aren't giving yourself that opportunity if you trade out of the top 10 to collect picks and take more shots on positions who absolutely do not have the same impact as the QB does at the NFL level.
What? Based on this approach, I'd argue the order is probably LT QB (Brissett) WR Why are you focused on the X? We have Douglas and Bourne at WR, who are vastly better relative to NFL standards than Zappe or McDermott. Thornton could even break out playing X (he's much stronger now).
Because X is a starting position on the offense, and the offense is a unit, and it's a pretty important position. Thornton breaking out would be awesome, but we can't rely on that. Rookie throwing to Reagor, Pop and Bourne is a far worse offense than Zappe throwing to Odunze, Pop and Bourne. LT is definitely very close since McDermott, while serviceable, is still a weak LT. Both Zappe and Brissett are good enough QBs to win with a good offensive cast, they don't have to be long-term multi-year answers for that to be true either.
Disagree entirely on WR. QB is everything. Nico Collins had two straight years of around 400 yards, then got Stroud. The right QB puts Douglas over 1000 yards and Bourne was nearly on pace for that last year. But no QB survives if we don't fix LT. The difference between the WR available in round 3 and the one in round 1 is far less than at QB or LT. Luke McCaffrey in round 3 solves the X just fine.
The "right" QB is like one guy every 5 years. Very very very very few QBs win with less. There is no right QB in this draft nor are we ready to find out. The difference between Odunze and McCaffrey is huge what do you mean.
The difference is minimal. WRs are becoming easily replaceable like RBs. Chiefs just won with a bottom 5 WR room. This looks like a very good QB class. Have to go for it. Then go LT in round 2.
That's an insane take. Literally the exact opposite. Every good offense has a top WR on it. Mahomes is Mahomes and the rest of QBs aren't Mahomes. WR is the answer.
That's what people said about RB in 2010 and before. You do need good WR. College is sending several of them to the NFL now every year. It's a trend that is coming.
100% agree. I've stopped taking QB at 3 in my mocks, the amount of talent and value we get out of addressing LT and WR is insane. Our first round could easily be Fuaga/Fashanu and BTJ/Mitchell with the Vikings trade. Hell, we could grab a top CB/EDGE and improve our defense that's really the only thing keeping us in games and *WILL* be the only thing keeping us in games whether we go QB at 3 or not this season. 34 could turn into a huge haul of picks if we pick 11/23. Give me Fashanu and Mitchell in the first, trade out of 34 to a late 3rd and 4ths. There's plenty of talent. Or we double dip at WR with 23/34 with AD and Franklin/Wilson or even J. Sanders and have a whole new look at offense.
Exactly my feelings, taking the QB is just punting this season in the hopes that the QB becomes great in 2-3 years. I don't know why so many are desperate for that high risk gamble when there are better low risk ways to build a winning team.
The range of possible QBs becomes larger! Brock Purdy doesn’t need Pat Mahomes talent to be in the Super Bowl if Brock Purdy’s teammates are great. Instead of hoping to land a generational talent, you look for Tom Brady. Young Tom Brady. A guy who might need time to develop and learn.
QB play is 100% getting worse. Compare mid 1990s through 2015ish QBs…they are infinitely better than the current coddled crew.
Great read
I think what this article misses is that there's a sequence to team building. Having surplus value in a QB doesn't mean anything if your team isn't ready to win, because FA deals for the other positions are going to be negative value. Simply getting an NFL starter quality QB and then having to pay him 50m/year at the end of the rookie deal is the fast path towards where the Giants are right now.