2021 Draft Thread - Officially pick 19th - 1st post updated with picks

[Boone]

What's the basis for labeling Trask 'high bust potential'? He's obviously more of a throw back type QB, not super athletic, prefers to stay in the pocket. But he is a 2 year + starter at Florida, was very productive in his final season, is a big strong QB, has better than average accuracy and a strong arm. I think there's a significant bias against players who are not RPO types with blazing speed and great feet nowadays. Are we that sure that traditional pocket passers can't be successful now? I'm not buying that. I'd also argue Trask is probably a 3rd or 4th rounder and therefore, is not projected to be an immediate starter. I think that speaks more to 'value pick' than 'bust potential'.

 

[Bulldog]

My comments were more the breakdown of specific quarterbacks arbitrarily put into the 'franchise' or 'potential bust' categories in a previous post

All of the college quarterbacks since they have not taken a snap in the NFL have some degree of bust potential.

From that list I don't see a Trey Lance or Kyle Trask as being a slam dunk to succeed while Justin Fields is put in another list as a significant bust risk.

We just don't know.

Fields for example played a high level of competition during his career. Lance at ND State less so.

I am not making any final pronouncements - just surprised some others are so certain in how this draft class at qb divides at this point into potential winners and losers.

 

[Boone]

I hear you on all that. Honestly, the only QB in this class that I think is close to an Andrew Luck/Peyton Manning type of 'sure thing' is Trevor Lawrence. Beyond him, I wouldn't put money on any of these guys. That's not to say there may not be 3 legit starters in this class. But picking which 3 it will be - it's crazy difficult.

 

[Bulldog]

And past drafts have shown that a guy taken in Round 2 or 3 may very well become one of the best quarterbacks in 5 years.

 

[SilentThreat]

fair warning there is some cussing in this video but the point is amazing. Watch the whole clip til he removes the names that are still with the team that drafted them.

 

[Boone]

It is pretty shocking just how many 1st rounders are total busts. On the other hand, it's just as glaringly obvious that in the last 5 seasons, that trend has largely been reversed - with more teams hitting on 1st round QBs than missing terribly. Are teams getting better at identifying keys to success at the position or is it just a cyclical thing?

 

[SilentThreat]

It is pretty shocking just how many 1st rounders are total busts. On the other hand, it's just as glaringly obvious that in the last 5 seasons, that trend has largely been reversed - with more teams hitting on 1st round QBs than missing terribly. Are teams getting better at identifying keys to success at the position or is it just a cyclical thing?

I think it's Cyclical.

For the last 10 years you could mark off a pretty big percentage of teams that would not be drafting a QB in the first round, those teams are likely coming up on a new wave of QBs. Not unrelated those are generally the better run organizations in the NFL. The teams that are GOOD have a franchise QB under contract so they're not usually drafting a QB high... instead building the team around the QB. Those teams also have the luxury of taking a guy later and seeing if he hits. I think it truly comes down to the people making the decision. Cleveland is on that board 3 times. Jacksonville will be on that board a 3rd time here in less than a month.

 

[Boone]

In other words, desparate people do desparate things

 

[SilentThreat]

Even further I think it all matters where they go. You don't see a lot of Super Bowl winning teams on that list once the format changed and they remove the players that are no longer with the team that drafted them. Mahomes is on that list but that was a situation with an 11-5 team that fell in love with a prospect and they went and got him. Not only were they good at evaluation but he walked into an offense that was ready to succeed. Other than that, there are not a lot of the NFL powerhouse teams listed there. Is it the team that gets a QB and turns them into a hit, or is the QB a hit and they elevate the whole team? I think both can be true... but not exclusive. I don't think anyone would argue against the idea that Aaron Rodgers is what is making the Packers competitive to their current level right now. I also think you could argue that Eli Manning doesn't win 2 Super Bowls with different teams. Ben Roethlisberger, another first round pick that won a lot but he was not walking into a baron squad. The team was good.

 

[Boone]

I'm skeptical there are many of those busts on that graphic who wouldn't have been busts no matter who drafted them. Maybe it wouldn't have been quite as ugly, but I am much more in the 'nature' side of what makes a great QB vs. the 'nurture' argument.

 

[SilentThreat]

Well to be fair those are just players not with their current teams. That includes names like:

Andrew Luck - Retired
Cam Newton - Won an MVP and took Carolina to a SB
Ryan Tannehill - Went to Tennessee and looks like a different QB - Adam Gase factor?
Carson Wentz - only a couple years removed from playing at an MVP level, likely looks A LOT better in Indy than he did in Philly

 

[Boone]

Of course QB success does not happen in a vacuum. But for every one of these players who were successful at one destination but not another, there are 3 who could not get it done for any of the teams who gave them a chance. Some guys are just innately good QBs, they have a feel for the game, and know how to play the position - and some just don't. The physical tools they were born with can be very helpful, but as we've seen with guys like Griffin, EJ Manuel, Winston, and Josh Rosen, you can have all the talent in the world and not be able to perform. I think teams place far too much emphasis on the measureables, and the mental aspect of the game is not given enough focus. Dwayne Haskins is the absolute most recent poster child for it.

 

[Bulldog]

Again, I think the mental aspect of the game is critical and the 'X' factor for many of these quarterbacks.

Just from looking at him on the field as a rookie it didn't look like Josh Rosen was understanding what he was seeing. He was VERY slow to see things develop and he labored to execute basic plays. He had the arm strength and the college experience.

Ditto for a guy like Jake Locker. I never understood how he could go #7 or #8 overall. But teams are desperate.

Looking back on it now, Dwayne Haskins was the ultimate 'raw' player that never really had a chance to be a starting quarterback in the NFL for some time.

You look back at the fact Joe Theismann didn't get on the field until he was 28 years old for Washington.

Steve Young was out of Tampa and a backup in SF for years.

If these guys were given one year or two to prove it or move on, would they have made it?

And these guys had a LOT more college experience than Haskins, and Young overall had a lot more pure talent.

 

[SilentThreat]

so they've gotten calls...




I would bet we have called but I dont know that we made any serious offer

 

[Kel Varnsen]

I would have offered to swap ones and Troy Apke. That’s about as serious as I would have gotten.

 

[SilentThreat]

Big take here by Breer

Draft Mailbag: Falcons at No. 4, Teams That Could Trade Up

Three weeks out from the draft, we know a little more about what should happen. But intrigue remains for several teams with big decisions looming.

www.si.com

 

[Boone]

Some shaky logic if you ask me. So for starters, all we have to do is stumble onto our own Patrick Mahommes- level talent. Lol. Or maybe we should shoot for Russell Wilson

I agree that it’s not all that likely we’ll make a big move, as much because our FO is made up of conservative guys (who also just got here and probably aren’t pining to have their very first big move be Incredibly risky) as because of what it will cost us.

But as we have talked about, teams have windows of opportunity and can’t keep young talent forever. My guess is we’ve currently got a 3-4 year window to make some serious noise. Fitzmagic is fine, but it’s unlikely he will be the QB to take us to the promised land. Every year you take the safe low risk approach is another year down the road for the roster which will already be hard enough to keep together.

At some ****ing point, you have to find a long-term starter. I’m really becoming concerned that, unless Heinicke or Allen rise up to become that guy (and that’s an extreme long shot), we are going to waste the best years of this young talented team and then see it disbanded when rookie contracts expire.

Safe and responsible gets your an improved team, but does it get you to a Super Bowl (or even to the playoffs every year? I’m not so sure. The other irony of playing it safe and forgoing doing what it takes to get your QB is that it all but ensures you’ll be picking in the 20’s in upcoming drafts, making it impossible to get your guy.

Unless you’re willing to take a big risk...

 

[SilentThreat]

I dont know though Boone... I think there may be a pretty good level of value in building the team up without going crazy to address the QB position, but always being ready to pounce in the correct situation. Mahomes didn't fall to KC, they traded up from 27 to 10 to get him giving up 2 first rounders and a 3rd to make it happen. They were doing that with Alex Smith on the roster and seemingly in his prime.

I don't think the point is that you don't go get your guy, it's more that nobody at 4 will be worth what you would have to give up to get them.... Breer even said that if one of the top guys drops to 10 they could move up...

 

[Bulldog]

There is a lot of wisdom to staying where you are in the draft and making the picks. And not trading many of them.

The Steelers were able to put together a team in the early 2000's that won 2 Super Bowls and went to a third and many of those players were draft picks, including Ben Roethlisberger, that were selected at Pittsburgh's regular spot in the draft order.

They didn't trade two #1 picks and a #2 to move up and take a quarterback.

They didn't sign a free agent for $100M.

Boring but very effective

For many years Green Bay did the same thing.

I think it all comes down to how much confidence the team has in the GM.

You don't see a lot of great 'traders' anymore in the NFL.

I still remember Bobby Beathard trading a #1 pick in 1982 for 3 draft picks in 1981 during the draft.

Of those three picks one was Russ Grimm (Round 3) and the other was Dexter Manley (Round 5).

He got clobbered at the time for making that trade for middle round picks using a #1, but he obviously saw talent that was first rate on sale in those rounds and certainly either player in his prime was worth a #1 pick by himself.

 

[Boone]

So, as long as we find the next Ben Roethlisberger at whatever picks we have the next few years, we’re set

I understand your argument, I really do, and I don’t want to give up a Kings Ransom on picks to find my QB. But I also don’t think crossing our fingers and passively hoping some hidden gem is there is likely to get us a difference maker. I am not afraid of being aggressive when it comes to the QB position - at some point you almost have to be.