Why is there this idea from some people that we can’t draft Wilson and improve the team going forward?

[RogerVick1980]

5 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Waiting for your roster to be great before you draft a QB is how you end up like the Colts.  

I know, I know, the Colts did Andrew Luck no favors, too.  Yadda yadda.  They also had three straight 11-5 seasons to begin his career, with Luck going to 3 straight Pro Bowls.  The lesson there is still not to wait on a QB when you think you've found one.  Take him and build.  

Thank you..

The idea it’s a failure because they didn’t win a SB is dumb..

The idea waiting to draft one because of Mahomes and Watson and that’s easy to replicate is equally as dumb..

 “Hey let’s take whoever the consensus third or fourth best Qb in this draft is who you don’t like as much as the top guys but because  they can turn into Mahomes because of what happened with him”

 

[derp]

18 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

The first point is kind of irrelevant and a product of the second. Having second choice of the crop doesn't inherently make the player worse than having third choice.

The second is a fair point though. And really, if you don't think very highly of this group of QBs and think you can get a similar talent in 2022 or 2023 then I can see why you'd want to do that. It's what the Dolphins just did -- they seem lukewarm at best on Tua but decided to run in back with him again as they continue to build with tons of premium picks.

But QB is still the most important position on the field and the Jets still have a LOT of premium picks after 2. If you believe in the guy you take him and move heaven and earth to support him. By contrast if you punt on QB you could be sitting there with the 18th pick in 2023 hoping some guy falls to you or moving tons of premium assets to move up. 

It's all on Joe Douglas at this point. If you don't believe in him and Robert Saleh I'm not sure it really matters what the Jets do with that pick. They need to deliver on their draft picks and put them in the best position to succeed.

 

The first point and the second point are kind of directly related. Spend premium picks on guys with lower bust rates, build a better team, create a situation that allows a QB who’s maybe a worse “prospect” to succeed.

What good is taking a better prospect if you repeatedly see young quarterbacks aren’t capable of elevating the talent level of a team and fall apart as a result? It’s just lighting the high draft picks on fire.

[Jetsfan80]

1 hour ago, chirorob said:

23 or 34 has to be o line.

I d9nt care about Best Player, blah blah blah.   Take the best available lineman.  Center, great.  Right tackle, fabulous.  Guard, also needed. 

My top choice to trade down from 23 and grab the top IOL wherever we end up.  Or, if we really want to, trade up to take a RT.  Sitting and picking at 23, where the board will likely line up with CB's and EDGE guys being at the top, is not ideal.  Even if we end up using a pick on IOL at 34.

[RogerVick1980]

6 minutes ago, derp said:

Six guys no longer on their current team less than a decade into their careers are your argument?

One retired because he got beat up, a backup who’s currently unsigned, a backup last year who has a chance to start this year but not guaranteed, another backup, and two reclamation projects whose franchises gave up on after paying them.

And the only SB win the guy was hurt and didn’t play for the whole playoff run.

I feel like you’re making my point, not the other way around.

The point is those teams have had sucess with the QB they drafted and the Eagles don’t even make the  playoffs without Wentz.

Mahomes and Watson are exceptions not guarantees on where to successfully draft a QB

[derp]

10 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Waiting for your roster to be great before you draft a QB is how you end up like the Colts.  

I know, I know, the Colts did Andrew Luck no favors, too.  Yadda yadda.  They also had three straight 11-5 seasons to begin his career, with Luck going to 3 straight Pro Bowls.  The lesson there is still not to wait on a QB when you think you've found one.  Take him and build.  

...he also got physically beaten up during the time to the point that he ended up retiring before he was 30. 

[pdxgreen]

13 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Waiting for your roster to be great before you draft a QB is how you end up like the Colts.  

I know, I know, the Colts did Andrew Luck no favors, too.  Yadda yadda.  They also had three straight 11-5 seasons to begin his career, with Luck going to 3 straight Pro Bowls.  The lesson there is still not to wait on a QB when you think you've found one.  Take him and build.  

Chris Ballard must have been close friends with Maccagnan.  I don't think I've ever seen a GM so afraid of giving a huge commitment to a QB.   He's cycled through Brissett, Rivers and now -- whatever is left of Wentz.  He says that it's the one decision he is hesitant to make because his job to attached.  But if you don't land a SB capable quarterback.. a GM doesn't last longer than 5 or so years.  So I would think you take a young QB every chance you get to even the odds.

[Jetsfan80]

8 minutes ago, CTJetsFan said:

That's a fair argument unless those bad organizations are on their 3 or 4th front office (including staff & scouting) in the past 10 years. Then you have to ask yourself "WTF?"

Well then it falls on ownership, much like it did here.  Joe Douglas didn't really come here because of the Johnson's, he came here based largely on familiarity with Adam Gase (for better or worse).  And now, he's "boxed out" the Johnson's and seems to be running the show.  

If it had been left up to the Johnson's entirely, they'd have hired another "yes man" GM on the cheap.  

[Jetsfan80]

2 minutes ago, derp said:

...he also got physically beaten up during the time to the point that he ended up retiring before he was 30. 

So the Colts shouldn't have drafted Luck?  Did you read the full post?  I acknowledged what you are saying while also showing why its a silly point to make.  

How are the Colts doing now, with this great roster?  Oh, they traded for Carson Wentz's expensive a$$?  Such a great model for success they're demonstrating there.

[derp]

1 minute ago, RogerVick1980 said:

The point is those teams have had sucess with the QB they drafted and the Eagles don’t even make the  playoffs without Wentz.

Mahomes and Watson are exceptions not guarantees on where to successfully draft a QB

None have won a Super Bowl or had a long term answer at QB. Maybe our definitions of success are different.

You think if the Jets draft Wilson, make the playoffs a couple times, maybe an AFC title game, and then he’s bad enough that he’s off the team in five or six years we’ll view that as a good use of the second pick?

Don’t we view the Mark Sanchez pick as a massive failure around here? How are those picks any different? Come on man.

[RogerVick1980]

4 minutes ago, derp said:

The first point and the second point are kind of directly related. Spend premium picks on guys with lower bust rates, build a better team, create a situation that allows a QB who’s maybe a worse “prospect” to succeed.

What good is taking a better prospect if you repeatedly see young quarterbacks aren’t capable of elevating the talent level of a team and fall apart as a result? It’s just lighting the high draft picks on fire.

Take a “lesser” prospect at QB? 
No thank you..

If you notice who’s winning  Super Bowls in today’s NFL it’s the very top QB’s who hide flaws on their  rosters.

I’d rather the top QB on a slightly flawed team then a great team with a average QB.

Niners are in that boat and already realizing how hard it is to win a SB with a decent QB even if you have a great team.

[derp]

Just now, Jetsfan80 said:

So the Colts shouldn't have drafted Luck?  Did you read the full post?  I acknowledged what you are saying.  

I did read the full post.

Luck is probably the only QB prospect in that stretch who truly deserved to go #1.

The franchise who took him also completely failed him. It resulted in his career ending far too early.

I don’t think that they’d pass on him if they went back. Maybe they’d do other things differently. I also don’t think the pick really worked out for him or the Colts. And I don’t think those ideas are mutually exclusive.

[derp]

2 minutes ago, RogerVick1980 said:

Take a “lesser” prospect at QB? 
No thank you..

If you notice who’s winning  Super Bowls in today’s NFL it’s the very top QB’s who hide flaws on their  rosters.

I’d rather the top QB on a slightly flawed team then a great team with a average QB.

Niners are in that boat and already realizing how hard it is to win a SB with a decent QB even if you have a great team.

...but the top QB’s in the NFL you’re describing were deemed the worse prospects on draft day and went to better situations. You’re making my point again.

[RogerVick1980]

9 minutes ago, derp said:

None have won a Super Bowl or had a long term answer at QB. Maybe our definitions of success are different.

You think if the Jets draft Wilson, make the playoffs a couple times, maybe an AFC title game, and then he’s bad enough that he’s off the team in five or six years we’ll view that as a good use of the second pick?

Don’t we view the Mark Sanchez pick as a massive failure around here? How are those picks any different? Come on man.

The point is Luck always have the Colts a chance to win it all every year and if not for retiring could have won one..

There is no guarantee it’s hard to win a SB but you know what’s close to a guarantee that you’ll eventually win a SB in today’s NfL?

Get a great QB no matter where you draft him. If the Jets think Wilson Can be great you don’t pass on him because great  QB’s win SB’s in today’s NfL that is so geared towards offense and specifically the QB

[CTJetsFan]

3 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Well then it falls on ownership, much like it did here.  Joe Douglas didn't really come here because of the Johnson's, he came here based largely on familiarity with Adam Gase (for better or worse).  And now, he's "boxed out" the Johnson's and seems to be running the show.  

If it had been left up to the Johnson's entirely, they'd have hired another "yes man" GM on the cheap.  

Agree. That's probably why some fans are skeptical that the results under JD will be any different (understandably so).

People just need to see how it plays out over the next year or 2 before saying that JD is just as bad as Tanny, Idzik and Macc

[RogerVick1980]

3 minutes ago, derp said:

...but the top QB’s in the NFL you’re describing were deemed the worse prospects on draft day and went to better situations. You’re making my point again.

That isn’t something to bank on that’s just luck.

Once again if the Jets think Wilson is great you take him..

Because Mahomes was drafted 10 now all of a sudden waiting till 10 gives you a much greater chance on a great Qb? Lol 

Thats not a reason to always  wait till then to draft a Qb and pass on a guy at the top of the draft you love

 

 

[derp]

Just now, RogerVick1980 said:

The point is Luck always have the Colts a chance to win it all every year and if not for retiring could have won one..

There is no guarantee it’s hard to win a SB but you know what’s close to a guarantee that you’ll eventually win a SB in today’s NfL?

Get a great QB no matter where you draft him. If the Jets think Wilson Bam be great you don’t pass on him because great  QB’s win SB’s in today’s NfL that is so geared towards offense and specifically the QB

...and the great QB’s who have their teams competing for Super Bowls right now were drafted later to better situations.

Do you think I...don’t want the Jets to have a great QB? I have differing beliefs in how that is accomplished, but I do want the great QB.

[derp]

Just now, RogerVick1980 said:

That isn’t something to bank on that’s just luck.

Once again if the Jets think Wilson is great you take him..

Because Mahomes was drafted 10 now all of a sudden waiting till 10 gives you a much greater chance on a great Qb? Lol 

 

 

You think it is just luck that the QB’s who go to the more talented teams that allow them to develop end up having better careers? No chance that the QB going to the better situation is connected with the better career?

[UntouchableCrew]

14 minutes ago, derp said:

The first point and the second point are kind of directly related. Spend premium picks on guys with lower bust rates, build a better team, create a situation that allows a QB who’s maybe a worse “prospect” to succeed.

What good is taking a better prospect if you repeatedly see young quarterbacks aren’t capable of elevating the talent level of a team and fall apart as a result? It’s just lighting the high draft picks on fire.

Well it's correlation vs. causation right? Guys don't fail because they're picked high they fail because teams who pick high generally don't know WTF they're doing. At a fundamental level if JD and RS don't know what they're doing we're screwed anyway.

Part of the logic in the Jets being able to pull this off is that via trade they've accumulated greater than normal draft capital the next two years and that the roster is actually not as bad as Adam Gase's coaching would have you believe. These are debatable points of course, but the blanket idea that you simply shouldn't take a QB in the top five makes little sense to me.

[Warfish]

2 hours ago, RogerVick1980 said:

Ive heard  from some people here and on social media that the Jets can’t draft a Qb because there are too many holes on the roster  and/or  Wilson would be put in the same situation as Darnold..

First off we aren’t contending this year anyway so if we can’t fill every hole this year it’s not the end of the world.. it’s about how we continue to build..

I don’t get why some people think if we draft Wilson we will have no ability going forward to improve the team at all and he will be stuck with this exact roster for his whole career..

We have enough assets and flexibility wheter through the draft or cap going forward to where if we make the right moves we have more then enough assets to build a talented team around Wilson eventually..

I don't get why you end every sentence with two periods.  

And we're almost assuredly drafting a QB at #2, so it doesn't really matter what fans think.  We're taking the QB.

JD will be evaluated on how that QB does along with the team. 

[RogerVick1980]

2 minutes ago, derp said:

You think it is just luck that the QB’s who go to the more talented teams that allow them to develop end up having better careers? No chance that the QB going to the better situation is connected with the better career?

I think an all time great QB got into a very good situation and now you have magic..

I do not think that’s easy to replicate nor do I think waiting to draft a QB guarantees anything..

I also find it funny that these Qb lists didn’t include Eli who went 1 because the Giants didn’t originally draft him or left out Bradshaw who own 4 titles picked at 1.

There is no guarantee to sucess or  one way to skin a cat except do whatever it takes to get that elite QB!! You do not pass on him because a few Qb’s went later on and had sucess..

[adobolo2]

21 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

We didn't have a QB when Darnold was still here, either.  Taking a QB was always going to be a strong possibility whether Darnold was here or not.  

That's subjective, matt ruhle believes he has a qb (no need for the "yea bridgewater" comeback) ?

[bitonti]

this argument is all well and good when it's April and abstract

this rookie will get the bag blitzed out of him by BB and Buffalo 

then let's see how the conversation goes 

 

[Warfish]

5 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

Well it's correlation vs. causation right? Guys don't fail because they're picked high they fail because teams who pick high generally don't know WTF they're doing. At a fundamental level if JD and RS don't know what they're doing we're screwed anyway.

Part of the logic in the Jets being able to pull this off is that via trade they've accumulated greater than normal draft capital the next two years and that the roster is actually not as bad as Adam Gase's coaching would have you believe. These are debatable points of course, but the blanket idea that you simply shouldn't take a QB in the top five makes little sense to me.

Great post.

[Barkus]

2 hours ago, freestater said:

Thank you. 

We're in position now to grab a high end QB prospect. (Thanks largely to our previous QBs poor play) Now is the time to take advantage of that.

What really drives me nuts is those who advocate passing on a QB to "build the team" will follow that unflinchingly with "well, we can use the capital we amass to move up and grab a QB in the future"

Friggin what?!? How could spending multiple 1sts to move up to the position you're in right now be a more effective approach? 

Take the QB. Only this time, spend a pick or two on a line and some playmakers for him. 

Agree. We have the 2nd pick right now and did have to trade up for it. Get the QB now. Maybe sign a veteran to get his ass beat up and then use the firsts and 2 seconds to continue to build up the team next year.

[football guy]

1 hour ago, RogerVick1980 said:

The point is every QB who’s been in that OSU system has looked great in college.

I’m not comparing Fields to Haskins but if you want to play the game of knocking Wilson for his competition then you can also pick apart how OSU puts all QB’s in a position  to suceed in college but none have done well in the pros..

The irony is amazing. Some get their panties in a bunch over someone writing posts in support of one prospect with conviction, claiming that "you're not a GM so what do you know", then those same people write posts with conviction in favor of the prospect they like, claiming the notion of playing in OSU's offense "holds no weight because I never liked any other OSU player anyway." I digress.  

I think Fields gets some unnecessary criticism for being an OSU QB. It's similar to the argument that "all USC QBs fail." It doesn't hold as much weight comparing him to his predecessors, especially when considering that many believe that Fields is among the most talented OSU QB ever. What does hold weight is the film and viewing it in context, and that's specifically where I definitely agree with you: the average fan doesn't seem to realize what makes OSU's offense different than a traditional offense, doesn't understand how that scheme promotes production, and the lackthereof a need to process information pre-snap, how that translates into the NFL, and why it's so important. If you even mention it as an issue, it evokes strong pushback, just as the Air Raid argument did that was prevalent the last few decades. I remember when I was a member on footballsfuture, there was an extremely intelligent poster who went by jrry82. He was a feverish supporter of Jared Goff and made a lot of good points why that player would translate to the NFL despite such, but he went as far as equating his ceiling to Peyton Manning's. I was the opposite; I felt he would have a rough time adjusting from Cal's offense to a pro offense for the sole purpose that they didn't give him too much responsibilities pre-and-post snap, and the playbook was simple, and should at the very least sit for 2-3 years like Aaron Rodgers did so he could digest the information and develop on the fly. I didn't doubt his talent as much as I doubted his ability to learn how to be a QB without having any of those responsibilities in college...

In the end, it looks like the reality was ultimately in the middle. I'd argue that excellent coaching, talent, and environment got the most out of him, and I bet he's still a strong supporter of him. Life goes on, but we can all learn from debates like these and determine how much weight needs to be placed on things like scheme. I'm still a big believer that it's extremely important. Find a pure air raid QB that has succeeded in their transition to the NFL absent Patrick Mahomes. The list is small, but it has improved in recent years as college teams (most notably Oklahoma) are implementing WCO responsibilities and wrinkles into their versions of the Air Raid, and NFL teams are introducing Air Raid principles into their offensive schemes. And that's my concern with Fields. I don't doubt he can be a really good player, but I do feel he has a lot of flaws as it relates to projecting in a pro-style WCO that places a heavy amount of responsibility on the QBs pre-snap. That's not to say that he can't develop and learn, but how long will he take? Who knows. I feel the analogy I used the other day is a solid one: you may be the best surgeon in the world, but how can you expect someone to bank on you if haven't been trained to practice on a human body, or haven't even gone to med school? There's probably a guy whose as good if not better than Mike Trout out there somewhere, but he may have never played baseball or was taught how to play the game the way it's traditionally played. That's what I feel like with Fields. He has talent for sure, but I have no idea how he'll translate into a pro-style offense no matter how talented, how smart, and how much leadership qualities he has... I think he'd be much better off playing for the Patriots or Ravens, who have displayed the ability to coach QBs without asking much of them pre-snap, and don't require them to make too many instinctual decisions/off-script plays post-snap... Josh McDaniels first had this vision with Tim Tebow, wanting to get a guy who could threaten teams with his legs and make pop throws in the RPO game, but it just never worked out for him because the arm talent wasn't there... Fields? It would work. Otherwise, I would safely estimate he'll need at least a year, maybe more, to translate into an NFL-style WCO and can't fathom how the Jets can afford to pass on a player who many smart people feel is less talented than Zach Wilson, who has 3 years of collegian experience playing in the very scheme we're looking to implement, in favor of a guy like Fields. I don't think that's an unfair criticism, and he could absolutely expedite his development the way Dak Prescott did, but if you're the Jets who are very likely to start this player from Day 1 and have a player with (arguably) better throwing talent, instincts, and experience in said offense, why would you take a risk on a player with a flawed projection without being able to cite substantial evidence that he would succeed? 

 

There goes my lunch hour lol

[LIJetsFan]

53 minutes ago, Bay Ridge Jet said:

I mean there was a vocal contingent to trade down and keep Sam so any move that diverted from that plan was gonna be frowned on. 

I was one of them but now that we got so much more for Sam than I expected I'm fine with things as they are and am happy to see how it all plays out.  I like the whole JD + draft capital thing.  

[football guy]

57 minutes ago, KRL said:

If they don't want to rush Wilson the only vet I would want is Alex Smith

I'm fine with Brian Hoyer honestly. We've lost for so long I can wait an additional 4-6 games. I don't think Wilson would need a full year, I just don't want him to worry as much about the game plan throughout training camp/first few games, rather, worry about the fundamentals and absorb how a pro QB prepares by being his backup. As much as I was critical of benching Fitzpatrick, I do think Miami had the right idea in mind with Tua 

[RogerVick1980]

24 minutes ago, Warfish said:

I don't get why you end every sentence with two periods.  

And we're almost assuredly drafting a QB at #2, so it doesn't really matter what fans think.  We're taking the QB.

JD will be evaluated on how that QB does along with the team. 

It’s just a habit on message boards..

But since  it bothers you so much I will  continue to do it..lol

Agree with you on JD..

[GreenReaper]

2 hours ago, JiF said:

Probably because it's a formula that's failed over and over again.  Also, in the history of the NFL, no rookie HC/rookie QB have ever been paired together and achieved sustained success except for Jimmy Johnson and Troy Aikman, who ironically built that team through a massive trade haul but I digress.  Wilson is not a pro-ready QB and it would be wise to find a bridge QB to build the team for when Wilson is ready.  I think throwing him to the wolves with this sh*tty roster would be a tragic mistake.

This is the reason why getting someone like a Alex Smith...who wants an opportunity to start...would be a good idea as the vet QB.  Let him start the season until Wilson is ready.  Personally...I don't really care if Wilson only starts the last 4-6 games of the season. To get some experience under his belt.   Wilson can then use the offseason to get ready to take over next year.  Meanwhile...JD can use the 2022 FA-Trade-draft process to give Wilson what should be a much improved roster to operate behind.  

People forget that Rodgers didn't get to start until his 4th year.  He was more then polished and ready by then.  GB couldn't push Favre out earlier.  In that time Rodgers went from a rookie drafted weighing something around 205-8 lbs, into a solid 225.  He did film study and practices, etc.  He was ready to roll for sure.  

Because of Brees...Rivers had to wait until year three before taking over.

Every year Brady should send flowers and chocolates to Mo Lewis on the day he knocked Drew Bledsoe from the game.  Which happened in Brady's 2nd or 3rd year.

Andy Reid had Mahomes learn for a year behind Alex Smith.    

Again...I'd have no problem if the Jets decided not to start Wilson right away.  But many Jets fans are frustrated and therefore impatient.  Whatever Jets brain trust plans to do...better be the right one.   I just want Wilson confident and prepared to succeed.  

[derp]

28 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

Well it's correlation vs. causation right? Guys don't fail because they're picked high they fail because teams who pick high generally don't know WTF they're doing. At a fundamental level if JD and RS don't know what they're doing we're screwed anyway.

Part of the logic in the Jets being able to pull this off is that via trade they've accumulated greater than normal draft capital the next two years and that the roster is actually not as bad as Adam Gase's coaching would have you believe. These are debatable points of course, but the blanket idea that you simply shouldn't take a QB in the top five makes little sense to me.

Since NFL teams haven’t dramatically changed how they draft quarterbacks at the top of the draft it doesn’t really look good either way. I think the franchise thing is overstated too. Teams like the Eagles and Rams haven’t been poorly run lately. Colts have had some great runs.

I think you’re misreading me too. I’m not saying you don’t take a quarterback in the top five. I’m pushing back on this idea that if you’re there then you should take one, because when are you going to have a chance again? If it’s *the* guy then sure, go for it, but I think that guy is rare to the point that taking guys that high is a questionable practice and should happen less than it does.

I wouldn’t say you never do it, but the idea that it’s a good place to take QB’s isn’t one that resonates with me at all either.

[Jetsfan80]

41 minutes ago, adobolo2 said:

That's subjective, matt ruhle believes he has a qb (no need for the "yea bridgewater" comeback) ?

Matt Rhule is high AF

Also, all HC's think they can "fix" a player with a modicum of talent.  That doesn't mean they're always right.  He's going to find out very quickly what buyer's remorse looks like.  Doesn't mean he isn't a good coach though.  

Not to mention, a 2021 6th and a future 2nd and 4th isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. It's a gamble for a relatively low price when compared to how much it costs to get QB's these days.  Last I heard they're also waffling on whether to hand him the 5th year option by the May 3 deadline, even though it was previously thought to be a virtual certainty that they would do so after trading for him.  This means that they're still hopeful one of the QB's falls to them at # 8 overall, and don't want to commit to Darnold beyond 2021 if that occurs.  

 

https://www.catscratchreader.com/2021/4/12/22380108/the-carolina-panthers-have-not-yet-picked-up-sam-darnolds-fifth-year-option

The Panthers have not yet picked up Sam Darnold’s fifth-year option

Although it has been talked about like it was a formality and a given, according to Matt Rhule, that is not something the team has done yet.

[RogerVick1980]

1 minute ago, derp said:

Since NFL teams haven’t dramatically changed how they draft quarterbacks at the top of the draft it doesn’t really look good either way. I think the franchise thing is overstated too. Teams like the Eagles and Rams haven’t been poorly run lately. Colts have had some great runs.

I think you’re misreading me too. I’m not saying you don’t take a quarterback in the top five. I’m pushing back on this idea that if you’re there then you should take one, because when are you going to have a chance again? If it’s *the* guy then sure, go for it, but I think that guy is rare to the point that taking guys that high is a questionable practice and should happen less than it does.

I wouldn’t say you never do it, but the idea that it’s a good place to take QB’s isn’t one that resonates with me at all either.

I don’t think anyone is saying take a QB if you don’t love them just to take one.

The push back seemed to be on some of you who seem to think you shouldn’t take a QB until the team is good no matter how good a QB prospect is.Or wait till 10 as if that’s a foolproof plan because Mahomes was drafted there.

If you have a chance to take a QB you think can be a elite QB you take them no questions asked no matter where you are picking or how good your team currently is

The QB position is too important in today’s NFL to pass on a potential top of the league QB.

The elite QB’s in today’s game pretty much guarantee you a title at some point and pretty much gives you a shot to win it going into each year.

[derp]

32 minutes ago, RogerVick1980 said:

I think an all time great QB got into a very good situation and now you have magic..

I do not think that’s easy to replicate nor do I think waiting to draft a QB guarantees anything..

I also find it funny that these Qb lists didn’t include Eli who went 1 because the Giants didn’t originally draft him or left out Bradshaw who own 4 titles picked at 1.

There is no guarantee to sucess or  one way to skin a cat except do whatever it takes to get that elite QB!! You do not pass on him because a few Qb’s went later on and had sucess..

Which one? Mahomes, Rodgers?

Of course waiting doesn’t guarantee anything. Not waiting doesn’t either. Waiting has just worked better because it’s resulted in better teams.

Eli was drafted seventeen years ago. Absolutely worked out. Lots of QB’s have gone at the top of the draft since then.

Recent Super Bowl winners to go in the first round with the team that drafted them are Mahomes (drafted 10th), Flacco (drafted 18th), Manning (drafted first), Rodgers (drafted 24th), Roethlisberger (drafted 11th), and the other Manning (drafted first). Then obviously Wilson in the third and Brady in the sixth.

I’m not saying it can’t work out. What I’m saying is it’s failed enough that I don’t think it’s a good use of the early draft capital.

[Adoni Beast]

48 minutes ago, pdxgreen said:

Chris Ballard must have been close friends with Maccagnan.  I don't think I've ever seen a GM so afraid of giving a huge commitment to a QB.   He's cycled through Brissett, Rivers and now -- whatever is left of Wentz.  He says that it's the one decision he is hesitant to make because his job to attached.  But if you don't land a SB capable quarterback.. a GM doesn't last longer than 5 or so years.  So I would think you take a young QB every chance you get to even the odds.

Chris Ballard is a very good GM, and I understand the prudent approach to not be wild in sacrificing the team for a QB, this offseason trading for Wentz was a good and measured move.

My fear about Douglas keeping Darnold and trading down was that if we built a team similar to Indy and Darnold was just average, we’d be the team getting bounced in the wild card round every year.

At some point all of those players will need 2nd contracts and you can’t keep them all....so you’re losing some and still looking for a QB. In Ballard’s case in makes sense. Indy was never in position to draft a QB high post-Luck. But us sitting at 2, with Wilson staring us in the face was a no-brainer in my mind. 

When you have a shot, take the QB. Build the team with and around him.

 

[peebag]

56 minutes ago, RogerVick1980 said:

Take a “lesser” prospect at QB? 
No thank you..

If you notice who’s winning  Super Bowls in today’s NFL it’s the very top QB’s who hide flaws on their  rosters.

I’d rather the top QB on a slightly flawed team then a great team with a average QB.

Niners are in that boat and already realizing how hard it is to win a SB with a decent QB even if you have a great team.

'cough, cough' Nick Foles 'cough, cough'