Team Phases based on QB situation

[SkinsNumberOne]

For all of the praise our FO gets - and they deserve it! - this experience is shaped around the luck of finding a gem in JD.

The FO seems to be doing a good job of shaping a team around that QB. Which is great - in all of the situations an FO can find itself in, that is one of the easier ones, but it is still not easy and many teams fail at it. It is 100 times more complicated sharing the division with a behemoth in the Eagles.

FO Situations:
- QB Hades: You do not have a QB. So, what do you do? In my opinion here, you do not tank until you get a QB. Drafting high does not guarantee anything. With any market, timing is the ultimate arbiter of your success, it is completely out of your control if "your QB" is available to you at your time. So in the meantime, you build your team, still. You "can" build a winner without a JD5. It is just much harder. It can definitely be done though.
- QB FA: You have a QB but he is on a meaty contract. This is also the case when you draft and develop the QB beyond rookie deals, but in that case "hopefully" you planned a bit. This is where your FO has to do a lot of contract juggling, but with the right planning and especially drafting - you CAN keep your QB around and have a Super Bowl team. The Eagles and Chiefs come to mind.
- QB recently drafted: This is the easiest situation.

Anyway, I thought this was kind of an interesting mental exercise --

To figure out which team is in which phase (and I am low on time), I turned to MS Copilot via Edge. I added in the "QB phase" I think each team is in based on the data, and I also tried to correct at least a few items that were obviously wrong.
***
Can you give me a list of every NFL team with their current starting QB, and how long that QB has been on their roster, as well as what team originally drafted them?
***

Sure! Here's a list of the current starting quarterbacks for each NFL team, along with how long they've been on their current roster and the team that originally drafted them:

AFC Teams​

1. Baltimore Ravens - QB FA
   • QB: Lamar Jackson
   • On Roster Since: 2018
   • Drafted By: Baltimore Ravens
2. Buffalo Bills - QB FA
   • QB: Josh Allen
   • On Roster Since: 2018
   • Drafted By: Buffalo Bills
3. Cincinnati Bengals - QB FA (recent)
   • QB: Joe Burrow
   • On Roster Since: 2020
   • Drafted By: Cincinnati Bengals
4. Cleveland Browns - QB Hades
   • QB: Deshaun Watson
   • On Roster Since: 2022
   • Drafted By: Houston Texans
5. Denver Broncos - QB recently drafted (likely for now)
   • QB: Bo Nix
   • On Roster Since: 2025
   • Drafted By: Denver Broncos
6. Houston Texans - QB recently drafted (likely for now)
   • QB: C.J. Stroud
   • On Roster Since: 2023
   • Drafted By: Houston Texans
7. Indianapolis Colts - QB... err... Hades?
   • QB: Anthony Richardson
   • On Roster Since: 2023
   • Drafted By: Indianapolis Colts
8. Jacksonville Jaguars - QB... err... Hades?
   • QB: Trevor Lawrence
   • On Roster Since: 2021
   • Drafted By: Jacksonville Jaguars
9. Kansas City Chiefs - QB FA
   • QB: Patrick Mahomes
   • On Roster Since: 2017
   • Drafted By: Kansas City Chiefs
10. Las Vegas Raiders - QB Hades
    • QB: Geno Smith
    • On Roster Since: 2025
    • Drafted By: New York Jets
11. Los Angeles Chargers - QB FA
    • QB: Justin Herbert
    • On Roster Since: 2020
    • Drafted By: Los Angeles Chargers
12. Miami Dolphins - QB FA
    • QB: Tua Tagovailoa
    • On Roster Since: 2020
    • Drafted By: Miami Dolphins
13. New England Patriots - QB recently drafted (they hope)
    • QB: Drake Maye
    • On Roster Since: 2025
    • Drafted By: New England Patriots
14. New York Jets - QB Hades
    • QB: Justin Fields
    • On Roster Since: 2025
    • Drafted By: Chicago Bears
15. Pittsburgh Steelers - QB Hades
    • QB: Russell Wilson
    • On Roster Since: 2024
    • Drafted By: Seattle Seahawks
16. Tennessee Titans - QB Hades
    • QB: Will Levis
    • On Roster Since: 2023
    • Drafted By: Tennessee Titans

NFC Teams​

1. Atlanta Falcons - QB recently drafted (they hope)
   • QB: Michael Penix Jr.
   • On Roster Since: 2025
   • Drafted By: Atlanta Falcons
2. Arizona Cardinals - QB FA (they hope)
   • QB: Kyler Murray
   • On Roster Since: 2019
   • Drafted By: Arizona Cardinals
3. Carolina Panthers - QB... err... Hades
   • QB: Bryce Young
   • On Roster Since: 2023
   • Drafted By: Carolina Panthers
4. Chicago Bears - QB recently drafted (they hope)
   • QB: Caleb Williams
   • On Roster Since: 2025
   • Drafted By: Chicago Bears
5. Dallas Cowboys - QB FA (they hope)
   • QB: Dak Prescott
   • On Roster Since: 2016
   • Drafted By: Dallas Cowboys
6. Detroit Lions - QB FA
   • QB: Jared Goff
   • On Roster Since: 2021
   • Drafted By: Los Angeles Rams
7. Green Bay Packers - QB FA
   • QB: Jordan Love
   • On Roster Since: 2020
   • Drafted By: Green Bay Packers
8. Los Angeles Rams - QB FA
   • QB: Matthew Stafford
   • On Roster Since: 2021
   • Drafted By: Detroit Lions
9. Minnesota Vikings - QB recently drafted (they hope, with big question marks since 0 exp)
   • QB: n/a JJ McCarthy
   • On Roster Since: n/a 2024
   • Drafted By: n/a Vikings
10. New Orleans Saints - QB Hades
    • QB: Derek Carr
    • On Roster Since: 2023
    • Drafted By: Las Vegas Raiders
11. New York Giants - The ultimate QB Hades
    • QB: Drew Lock
    • On Roster Since: 2025
    • Drafted By: Denver Broncos
12. Philadelphia Eagles - QB FA
    • QB: Jalen Hurts
    • On Roster Since: 2020
    • Drafted By: Philadelphia Eagles
13. San Francisco 49ers - QB FA (coming soon out of recently drafted)
    • QB: Brock Purdy
    • On Roster Since: 2022
    • Drafted By: San Francisco 49ers
14. Seattle Seahawks - QB FA
    • QB: Sam Darnold
    • On Roster Since: 2025
    • Drafted By: New York Jets
15. Tampa Bay Buccaneers - QB FA
    • QB: Baker Mayfield
    • On Roster Since: 2023
    • Drafted By: Cleveland Browns
16. Washington Commanders - QB recently drafted (why I don't give us "they hope" is because of playoff success already proven without strong defense. Unique situation. Unbiased analysis)
    • QB: Jayden Daniels
    • On Roster Since: 2025
    • Drafted By: Washington Commanders

Let me know if you need more details or have any other questions!

References
[1] List of NFL Starting Quarterbacks: Geno Smith, Sam Darnold Find New ...
[2] NFL QB Power Rankings: All 32 Starting Quarterbacks for 2025
[3] Projecting every NFL team's starting QB in 2025: Where will Aaron ...

 

[Chris]

All indications at this time seem to point to JJ McCarthy being the Vikings starting QB for this season.

Levis, Lock, Richardson, and Watson are questionable. I guess there is a chance that Pittsburgh re-signs Wilson but I wouldn’t bet on it.

 

[SkinsNumberOne]

All indications at this time seem to point to JJ McCarthy being the Vikings starting QB for this season.

Levis, Lock, Richardson, and Watson are questionable. I guess there is a chance that Pittsburgh re-signs Wilson but I wouldn’t bet on it.

Yes, I think JJ is a lock. I added him in.

The others, I am not sure what they are doing but yes they may make a move. I will leave it as Copilot gave it for now.

It's interesting to see who is in what phase and what levels of success each team has been able to have (or not have) given the individual phases.

 

[Boone]

FO Situations:
- QB Hades: You do not have a QB. So, what do you do? In my opinion here, you do not tank until you get a QB. Drafting high does not guarantee anything. With any market, timing is the ultimate arbiter of your success, it is completely out of your control if "your QB" is available to you at your time. So in the meantime, you build your team, still. You "can" build a winner without a JD5. It is just much harder. It can definitely be done though.

I just want to briefly quibble on this one. I hear it a lot and I think it's very misleading. 'Drafting high does not guarantee anything'. Of course not. But that's like saying 'chemotherapy can't cure all cancers'. Doesn't mean, if you have cancer, that chemotherapy might not be a bad idea.

While there are outliers - Brady, Russell Wilson, numerous others throughout draft history, generally speaking the higher in the draft you swing, the more likely you hit. I don't think that can be disputed. Better players (at least in the estimation of the 'experts') get drafted early. Again, we are speaking in generalities.

As to your overall point, I think the best approach for a mediocre team without a franchise QB that never finishes high enough to have a shot at more likely to be successful QB draftees isn't to 'tank' - because I just don't think that's a feasible approach. Players don't want to tank. Coaches whose jobs depend on not sucking don't want to tank. Most fans, even of bad teams, don't want to tank. And the NFL definitely doesn't want it.

But what a smart GM can do is start shedding value on the roster. Trade your best talent away for as many picks as you can get. Stock up on ammo to get up to the top of the draft in a QB loaded draft where there is a more realistic chance of finding 'the guy'.

Just a little tangent.

 

[SkinsNumberOne]

I just want to briefly quibble on this one. I hear it a lot and I think it's very misleading. 'Drafting high does not guarantee anything'. Of course not. But that's like saying 'chemotherapy can't cure all cancers'. Doesn't mean, if you have cancer, that chemotherapy might not be a bad idea.

While there are outliers - Brady, Russell Wilson, numerous others throughout draft history, generally speaking the higher in the draft you swing, the more likely you hit. I don't think that can be disputed. Better players (at least in the estimation of the 'experts') get drafted early. Again, we are speaking in generalities.

As to your overall point, I think the best approach for a mediocre team without a franchise QB that never finishes high enough to have a shot at more likely to be successful QB draftees isn't to 'tank' - because I just don't think that's a feasible approach. Players don't want to tank. Coaches whose jobs depend on not sucking don't want to tank. Most fans, even of bad teams, don't want to tank. And the NFL definitely doesn't want it.

But what a smart GM can do is start shedding value on the roster. Trade your best talent away for as many picks as you can get. Stock up on ammo to get up to the top of the draft in a QB loaded draft where there is a more realistic chance of finding 'the guy'.

Just a little tangent.

Definitely agree.

Build a team that has value, and keep loading and reloading on draft picks via trades - be willing to "reload" until you find the right mix, probably including a QB. I think that makes a lot of sense. It's hard to do though (takes a lot of discipline), I guess.

As for the "Drafting high does not guarantee anything" - I just mean, there are people who want teams to tank to get "that player" who they think will transform the team, but I am just saying that strategy is rife with problems. I didn't mean that high draft picks aren't statistically more likely to hit. I meant that in any given year, the highest draft picks have strongly varying value. We were REALLY lucky to have #2 in 2024. Yes, our FO had to have JD land there and be smart enough to get him, but when Rivera picked Chase Young - that was a fairly universally agreed upon pick (I think you have made this point in the past). What a difference between those picks.

That is the lack of guarantee I was referencing. The "market timing" is what determines the true value of your high draft pick year-to-year. In 2024, the value was astronomical from what we know today.

 

[Boone]

Gotcha. I think the problem you are describing has also gotten worse in the past decade because teams are so desperate to find a franchise QB (rightly so) that they will convince themselves to roll the dice where it is not warranted. I am a big believer (and I know Om subscribes to this idea) that we should probably be drafting a QB in almost every draft. Yes - when it's year 2 of Jayden Daniels-level talent, that is a bit different than the last 25 years of wandering in the QB desert, but you just never know what can happen and finding yourself without a true starter is a disaster. We know this better than anyone. As far as trading away talent to obtain draft pick 'ammo' - the truth is, until you get a real QB, all the roster talent in the world probably isn't going to be enough.

 

[SkinsNumberOne]

Gotcha. I think the problem you are describing has also gotten worse in the past decade because teams are so desperate to find a franchise QB (rightly so) that they will convince themselves to roll the dice where it is not warranted. I am a big believer (and I know Om subscribes to this idea) that we should probably be drafting a QB in almost every draft. Yes - when it's year 2 of Jayden Daniels-level talent, that is a bit different than the last 25 years of wandering in the QB desert, but you just never know what can happen and finding yourself without a true starter is a disaster. We know this better than anyone. As far as trading away talent to obtain draft pick 'ammo' - the truth is, until you get a real QB, all the roster talent in the world probably isn't going to be enough.

In theory that makes a lot of sense, maybe partly because the risk/reward is so astronomically high with QBs (look at Purdy). However, if you have "your guy" it's hard for your prospect to be a known quantity (limited NFL experience).

The other significant problem is that strategy takes away from BPA, which I think combined with your other previous point - being willing to trade for picks - that is key. I think if you do BPA and trade for more picks, you will hopefully end up getting some QBs in the mix. BPA drafting - I have come around on this - I think it's really critical to set yourself for BPA drafting (which is what AP has done each of these two years). When you draft BPA, you are maximizing your position in the draft, full stop, by definition (subject to the quality of your board, of course!). That has to be optimal, especially when combined with a willingness to trade for picks - I think.

 

[Chris]

I realize that this will make me a ‘bad fan’ among some, if not many, here but I was actively rooting for the team to lose out two seasons ago due to the universally acclaimed talent of the top three QBs in the draft class. Was I a proponent of tanking? You betcha.

 

[Primus Porcus]

I realize that this will make me a ‘bad fan’ among some, if not many, here but I was actively rooting for the team to lose out two seasons ago due to the universally acclaimed talent of the top three QBs in the draft class. Was I a proponent of tanking? You betcha.

There is a difference between Tanking, and losing with a purpose.

Tanking is actively working against the players competitive nature. IMHO it can create a negative environment, especially to the younger players entering the NFL.

I don't want any player on my team to ever accept losing, regardless of the circumstances. They should 100% of the time be dedicated to getting better with the goal of winning no matter what. The minute losing becomes acceptable, it changes the brain.

Losing with a purpose is a different dynamic, and one that I 10000% subscribe to. Playing the 5th round LB on a rookie deal instead of signing the 33 year old veteran at 10 times the cost is not prioritizing winning, but it's also not intentionally losing either. The mentality like that across the lineup has a very real effect on whether or not you will win that particular Sunday... but the goal still remains to win.

 

[Chris]

I don’t think that team was losing with a purpose or in anyway working against the players competitive nature. Nor do I think that the coaching staff was intentionally trying to lose games. It was simply that the staff was so poor that the result could easily be construed as tanking.

Whatever term is offered, I was 100% pulling for Rivera etal to not pull a monkey out of their ass hat.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

I just want to briefly quibble on this one. I hear it a lot and I think it's very misleading. 'Drafting high does not guarantee anything'. Of course not. But that's like saying 'chemotherapy can't cure all cancers'. Doesn't mean, if you have cancer, that chemotherapy might not be a bad idea.

While there are outliers - Brady, Russell Wilson, numerous others throughout draft history, generally speaking the higher in the draft you swing, the more likely you hit. I don't think that can be disputed. Better players (at least in the estimation of the 'experts') get drafted early. Again, we are speaking in generalities.

As to your overall point, I think the best approach for a mediocre team without a franchise QB that never finishes high enough to have a shot at more likely to be successful QB draftees isn't to 'tank' - because I just don't think that's a feasible approach. Players don't want to tank. Coaches whose jobs depend on not sucking don't want to tank. Most fans, even of bad teams, don't want to tank. And the NFL definitely doesn't want it.

But what a smart GM can do is start shedding value on the roster. Trade your best talent away for as many picks as you can get. Stock up on ammo to get up to the top of the draft in a QB loaded draft where there is a more realistic chance of finding 'the guy'.

Just a little tangent.

Interestingly, there aren't a lot of really good teams with stacked rosters looking for QBs. The Vikings are one, the Steelers are another. Most teams with good rosters also happen to have good QBs.

Most of the teams who need QBs also have a full roster rebuild to go through. See, Commanders.

The Vikings MIGHT have a good QB, they drafted McCarthy last year, but he got hurt. We'll see.

The Steelers are the poster child of never being bad enough to get a top pick to get a top QB. I'd argue, they are the team that should go all-in and trade future assets to take a shot on a top QB prospect. I just wouldn't do it this year. They probably should have done it last year and moved up to grab (pick your favorite) McCarthy, Nix, Penix. The top 3 were out of reach, but there were 3 others sitting there, they could have gotten one of them.

It's not really in their DNA, but I would change the DNA, and trade up to get a QB if they liked one. Don't wait until 20-something and pick "hands." Because you're right, the higher you pick a QB, the more likely they are to succeed. The hit rate decreases with every spot. #1 QBs aren't a lock, but they have a much better hit rate than a guy picked #20-#30.

 

[Primus Porcus]

Interestingly, there aren't a lot of really good teams with stacked rosters looking for QBs. The Vikings are one, the Steelers are another. Most teams with good rosters also happen to have good QBs.

Most of the teams who need QBs also have a full roster rebuild to go through. See, Commanders.

The Vikings MIGHT have a good QB, they drafted McCarthy last year, but he got hurt. We'll see.

The Steelers are the poster child of never being bad enough to get a top pick to get a top QB. I'd argue, they are the team that should go all-in and trade future assets to take a shot on a top QB prospect. I just wouldn't do it this year. They probably should have done it last year and moved up to grab (pick your favorite) McCarthy, Nix, Penix. The top 3 were out of reach, but there were 3 others sitting there, they could have gotten one of them.

It's not really in their DNA, but I would change the DNA, and trade up to get a QB if they liked one. Don't wait until 20-something and pick "hands." Because you're right, the higher you pick a QB, the more likely they are to succeed. The hit rate decreases with every spot. #1 QBs aren't a lock, but they have a much better hit rate than a guy picked #20-#30.

A smidge of clarity on the last part of the post.


I know this may seem obvious but as we dig a lot deeper into these evaluations, i don't know that it's safe to say 'the hit rate decreases with every spot' because in reality the spot has nothing to do with it. It's 100% on the player. Tom Brady being drafted 1st over by the Patriots or 199th by the Patriots the outcome would have been the same. Pick is irrelevant. The bigger effect is that the talent pool shrinks with every passing pick. The great talent evaluators can identify those traits that create 'better' prospects. They then also cultivate that talent after it's entered the building. I would veture to guess that a very large number of the players that fail, fail because of what happens after draft day, not before it. It's not a mistake that certain teams have more 'hits' in ALL rounds of the draft than others. #1 QBs have higher hit rates because they're the better prospects. Because the higher in the draft you pick, the more shots you have at being able to chose the guy YOU want to fit YOUR system that gets along with YOUR coach.

If team need was taken out of the equation and it was 100% BPA, then the guy getting picked at 50 has just as good a shot of being successful as the guy at 25, 15, 10, or 5. The only difference is how the opinions of grading are applied to the player to create a 'draft value.' Add to that the fact that there are 32 opinions of decision makers and 320000 opinions of random people and talking heads, then the narrative about players change. Laremy Tunsil is a perfect example. He plummeted in the draft because of some curious images that came out. He was still the same guy had he gone 1 overall instead of 13. Pick number didn't change his trajectory as a player.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

A smidge of clarity on the last part of the post.


I know this may seem obvious but as we dig a lot deeper into these evaluations, i don't know that it's safe to say 'the hit rate decreases with every spot' because in reality the spot has nothing to do with it. It's 100% on the player. Tom Brady being drafted 1st over by the Patriots or 199th by the Patriots the outcome would have been the same. Pick is irrelevant. The bigger effect is that the talent pool shrinks with every passing pick. The great talent evaluators can identify those traits that create 'better' prospects. They then also cultivate that talent after it's entered the building. I would veture to guess that a very large number of the players that fail, fail because of what happens after draft day, not before it. It's not a mistake that certain teams have more 'hits' in ALL rounds of the draft than others. #1 QBs have higher hit rates because they're the better prospects. Because the higher in the draft you pick, the more shots you have at being able to chose the guy YOU want to fit YOUR system that gets along with YOUR coach.

If team need was taken out of the equation and it was 100% BPA, then the guy getting picked at 50 has just as good a shot of being successful as the guy at 25, 15, 10, or 5. The only difference is how the opinions of grading are applied to the player to create a 'draft value.' Add to that the fact that there are 32 opinions of decision makers and 320000 opinions of random people and talking heads, then the narrative about players change. Laremy Tunsil is a perfect example. He plummeted in the draft because of some curious images that came out. He was still the same guy had he gone 1 overall instead of 13. Pick number didn't change his trajectory as a player.

I was just talking statistically. The higher you pick, the greater the chance of success. It's not a 100% rule, and there are exceptions all over the place.

But your probability of finding a QB (or any player) who hits is higher the earlier you pick.

Which makes sense, you'd think the best prospects get picked earlier.

But I agree with your overall point. It's the player that matters, not where you pick them.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Definitely agree.

Build a team that has value, and keep loading and reloading on draft picks via trades - be willing to "reload" until you find the right mix, probably including a QB. I think that makes a lot of sense. It's hard to do though (takes a lot of discipline), I guess.

As for the "Drafting high does not guarantee anything" - I just mean, there are people who want teams to tank to get "that player" who they think will transform the team, but I am just saying that strategy is rife with problems. I didn't mean that high draft picks aren't statistically more likely to hit. I meant that in any given year, the highest draft picks have strongly varying value. We were REALLY lucky to have #2 in 2024. Yes, our FO had to have JD land there and be smart enough to get him, but when Rivera picked Chase Young - that was a fairly universally agreed upon pick (I think you have made this point in the past). What a difference between those picks.

That is the lack of guarantee I was referencing. The "market timing" is what determines the true value of your high draft pick year-to-year. In 2024, the value was astronomical from what we know today.

But knowing that was a draft loaded with top prospects at the time it was right to be rooting for Washington to tank in 2023.

 

[SkinsNumberOne]

But knowing that was a draft loaded with top prospects at the time it was right to be rooting for Washington to tank in 2023.

The way they executed the "tank" worked out so well. It's unclear if it was a full plan and they certainly cannot (and should not) admit to it because it's a stain on another man, which is kind of classless, but--

Just kind of knowing that Ron's team would be good for max 8, and most probably not reaching there... then taking Chase and Sweat away for picks... it was masterful, as you and others have said, particularly at that time.
The second pick of the draft does not always carry as much weight as it did in 2024. That was an outlandishly large value compared to other second picks, because of the surety of your ability to get a star.

I am not saying it was (or even is) a sure thing. JD has durability concerns, and those were real. However, the 2024 draft was one of those rare drafts with so much QB talent, you have near absolute certainty ONE of them will be a big hit in the NFL, and maybe TWO, and maybe even more. The amount of high-talent, high-expectations QBs in that draft, you just knew ONE at least would hit.

So yes, 2024, the value of one of those top picks was tremendous. That's the market timing aspect of it.

The *way* they lost in 2023, just letting the coaching play out, as the coaches were trying to put wins together; we can argue some of it. I do think it was tough on the players with a lame-duck coach, but I also think it was hard on the owners getting in so late. Worse would have been a random new coach for a year. This was the best of a lot of bad, and something amazingly good came out of it. As tough as it was on that 2023 team, I don't think there were good options available to anyone there that were better than this.