NFL - Random Opinions

There are 32 starting QBs in the league....I think off the top of my head only 8 have been drafted #1. And I think, again off the top of my head, that at least half of them were drafted at #10 overall or later.

 

Contrary to popular belief, they did try to get a QB. Upon failing, so did regime after regime. They didn't trade up and take the best of each draft though, they took the ones available to them when they drafted... or traded down so others could take a better QB...it was bassackwards.

Before Baker Mayfield, Tim Couch was the only QB taken in the top 20 of the draft, #1 overall in 1999. They drafted (3) QBs in the 20's over the last 16 years...each of which failed.

I can't remember a time other than trading for the Bills compensatory pick to draft Bernie Kosar, that the Browns actually traded up to get a QB...I think you have a misconception on how the Browns have drafted over the years.

Each time they were picking in the top couple spots of the draft, they either had taken a first round QB the year before or didn't deem any QB in those drafts worth taking. The Browns have sucked, but they've usually been just good enough to be picking between 6-10 in the draft...out of the running for the top QBs.

So, if anything, the Browns NOT taking those chances when having the opportunity and losing for 17 seasons should build the case for why the Giants SHOULD make a move if it is available.

Teams that don't find a QB absolutely don't win consistently...that's the issue at hand. Short term GMs/coaches know they have to get a QB to survive, so they take that chance when it's available, they can't wait and hope they improve enough and luck into a QB later...there might not be a later.

 

How many #1 overall draft picks have there been in the last 15 years? Even if there are 8 starters, that's a 50% chance of getting a starter if you draft one #1 overall. How many QBs have been drafted outside the top 10? Now, even if 16 starters that came from outside the top 10, what are your odds of drafting the one that actually becomes a starter? The odds drop drastically...

 

This is a separate part of the discussion, but we can look at it in a moment...

But for the original point -

You mentioned Andrew Luck as the last passer you would put the qualifier on as 'can't miss'.

You specifically said - "Or you're trading for a QB that is a definite can't miss player."

My point is that if you are looking to go after that player you have to either be sitting at #1 or willing to give up whatever assets necessary to move up to #1. That's the only way you know for sure that you will get that player.

If you are looking more broadly towards 'starting caliber' then you can start considering picks outside of that top one, but you still have to view it as the prime spot to get the exact player that you want, or else you are simply hoping to get a coveted player.

We know that every draft class is different so last year a team would have been able to sit tight at #6 and get a passer if they had more than one with a similar grade and were comfortable with taking any of them. In 2012, if you wanted what was considered the unanimous top passer in the class you either had to 'suck for Luck' or be willing to sell your entire franchise to move up to get him, and chances are that the Colts were never going to trade that pick.

Looking at the rest of the quarterbacks in the league - How many are starters out of necessity? How many are capable of leading their team through an entire post-season run? How many are capable of winning games late and changing the outcome of a season for their franchise?

Quality passers are hard to come by. Game changing passers are even more difficult. True franchise quarterbacks, not just the kind a team signs to be the franchise arm but the kind that can change the fortunes of a team for a decade are so rare that the price for potential alone goes steadily up through the months of March and April.

We have a fundamental difference in opinion on whether or not the top two quarterbacks in this class can be true franchise quarterbacks. With that, we also have a difference in opinion on whether or not it's worth it to move up and go after a quarterback other than one that is being viewed as a 'can't miss' prospect.

In the end, it's just a difference in philosophies when it comes to the draft.

 

Which is probably the bigger reason for why we view the potential trade value of that pick differently.

The market will set itself at some point so it will be interesting to see what kind of compensation is netted.

 

I didn't say they didn't try. I think everyone realizes they tried.

Not trading up wasn't the failure. Talent evaluation was the failure.

They took Tim Couch #1 in 99. They had the #3 pick the next year and would pick within the top 5 a total of 4 more times before they finally drafted Mayfield.

The Browns over the years have passed up on the chance to draft Watson, Goff, Carr, Garoppolo, Dalton, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, and probably a bunch of others. A lot of those guys you wouldn't want now because you have Mayfield.

But you can't pretend the only problem was they never traded up. That's misleading.

How many other teams, in that same time frame, found successful QBs drafting AFTER the Browns?

I don't have a misconception of how the Browns drafted....because I never made a claim of how they drafted. What I said was they had chances, a lot of chances, to find a QB...and they did. They drafted poorly for years.

They weren't always out of running for QBs because plenty of QBs that have won a lot more games than the Browns have, have been selected after the Browns have made their picks.

One, you're making an assumption now that the Giants GM is "short term". Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. You have no idea. So that can't even be part of the argument.

 

Tim I know we talked about Murray a little bit the other day and maybe I came off as down on him. My fears with Murray are entirely about what is going on in his head and I can't possibly know that. If he goes early it's because a team is comfortable with that side of him. You need to want this BADLY to be a great NFL QB. I get that feel from Haskins -- I just haven't from Murray.

I wouldn't be shocked at all if Murray goes first. I would be shocked if he went to the Giants but that is mostly because Dave Gettleman still lives in the 90's with how he believes players should look and be utilized. I know quite a few guys who think Murray is the right direction for the Giants but also believe it will never happen.

 

Honestly, I don't even understand these questions.

All I'm saying is the idea that you have to be at #1 or in the top 5 to get your QB....isn't exactly accurate. So saying that's why the Giants need to pull the trigger on a trade...doesn't work for me. It's not historically accurate.

Logic like that is what makes GMs panic and make trades that later cost their team.

 

Gettleman is 68 years old. Regardless of doing a good or a bad job -- he isn't a long term hire.

 

I think that's just it right there.

If I viewed either one of these guys as the savior that will be talked about as one of the best QBs in the game for the next 10 years....I wouldn't argue against trading picks to acquire them.

Right now I think the Giants play should be to stand pat and if one of them fall to #6 take them....if they don't then adjust...take the BPA and snag a QB later if BPA isn't a QB at #6.

 

Good point....but we can't assume his fate is tied to finding a QB right now either.

 

Not that I'm saying he's the right GM to turn the franchise around either. Because I don't think he is.

 

No, what I meant was, they weren't in position to take their top QB choice in many drafts... Watson, Garoppolo, Rodgers, Dalton, Roethlisberger...No one had them as top QBs in their drafts...how many others were drafted that were busts during those drafts that they also passed on?

Roethlisberger was one prosecutor away from being a convicted rapist, on a personal level, I wouldn't trade any of the Steelers Super Bowl trophies for him to be a part of the Browns for even one year.

The jury is still out on Watson and Garoppolo as neither has given enough to show they are franchise QBs in this league after having 3 and 5 seasons under their belts. Dalton is Dalton..do you consider him a franchise type player? He's never won a playoff game.

Goff was the #1 overall pick, the Browns picked #2 and chose to trade down instead of taking Wentz...who hasn't been healthy enough to prove anything yet in his 3 years.

My point is..you might get lucky and draft a guy lower...or you could be any one of the countless guys drafted who you are trying to replace 2 years later.

They passed on a lot of QBs, you can't just name the ones that might end up being half way decent when declaring an argument for or against.

 

Is it about finding a QB that can win you more games than a franchise that averaged 5 wins over the last two decades, or trying to find one that can get you to the Super Bowl?

If you want one that can do the latter, then when given the opportunity to draft one, you take it... The Browns might have missed out on a couple of guys, but the only one that was coveted highly in the league that they didn't take was Carson Wentz.

The percentage of hits to misses once you get past that top 5 guy is drastically lower than when you take one within that top 5.

 

No I'm not...my assumption is that if they don't build a playoff caliber roster within the next 3 years he will be gone. If he builds a roster to get to the playoffs, then he keeps his job...but getting there and winning becomes much more difficult without a QB...and if you find a QB, the job is much much easier.

 

This is further evidence why trading up isn't a necessity. Better player evaluation is the answer to most teams problems.

Roethlisberger's off field stuff has nothing to do with the conversation. This isn't about who you like or who you'd want on your team....the question is if over the years the Brown's missed on QBs because they refused to trade up....which is what you claim....but a look at the drafts year by year prove that that's wrong.

Dalton was a franchise type player at one point, isn't anymore. But that's not what I trying to show. It's safe to say Dalton was a lot better than some of the crap the Browns put under center. And they wouldn't have needed to trade up to get him.

I didn't mean to type Goff that was a mistake.

Wentz, to me, barring injury is probably a top 5 QB right now. When he's healthy and on the field he's better than most.

My point is plenty of teams pass up legit starting QBs in every draft....so taking the assumption you have to trade up to get your guy is flawed.

Sure I can. Because if you can make the flawed argument that the only reason they never got a QB is because they didn't trade up....anything is fair game.

 

QBs drafted in the top 5 in the last 10 years.

Mayfield....looks really good, too early to judge though.
Darnold.....jury still out.
Trubisky....jury still out.
Goff....seems to have a lot of critics these days, still very young.
Wentz....outstanding but injury concerns.
Winston.....bust?
Mariota....hasn't lived up to being a #2.
Bortles......hahahahaha.
Luck....legit.
RGIII....third stringer.
Cam....legit. Hasn't won a SB though.
Bradford...nope.
Stafford....stat machine, has barely been to playoffs though.
Sanchez....was overrated when people thought he was good.
Matt Ryan....legit.
JaMarcus Russell....bust.

History isn't on your side here. Shall we look at QBs drafted in the first round at 6 or higher?

 

Mark Sanchez was what Bortles needed to be for the Jags to make the Super Bowl. He wasn't "good" but he wasn't really a liability in managing the game when he was being carried by his team. Of course as the rest of the team went Sanchez couldn't hold his own at all.

 

It clearly is what he was hired for and whoever he picks will be his legacy -- but I don't think he is in a hurry. He is in it to find a guy he believes in.