Dwarfing 1983

[GunnerBill]

It is NOT a crap shoot.  You have to evaluate them and then trust your evaluation skills.  

[Gordio]

3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

It is NOT a crap shoot.  You have to evaluate them and then trust your evaluation skills.  

 

Well maybe not a crap shoot but all these QBs have their flaws.  I could see a scenario where Jackson or Rudolph have the most successful careers out of the 6.  People are dismissing Rosen's injury history like it is no big deal.  He has had 2 concussions & shoulder problems.  Don't tell me it is not a crap shoot.

[GunnerBill]

Just now, Gordio said:

 

Well maybe not a crap shoot but all these QBs have their flaws.  I could see a scenario where Jackson or Rudolph have the most successful careers out of the 6.  People are dismissing Rosen's injury history like it is no big deal.  He has had 2 concussions & shoulder problems.  Don't tell me it is not a crap shoot.

 

It's not a crap shoot. There are teams who consistently draft better than others.  They have better scouts and better process.  Nobody is going to hit on every pick but it is not some lottery either. Process wins and good evaluation wins.

[Mojo44]

4 hours ago, Zerovotlz said:

 

Mostly to do with the 5 in top 15, and the possibility that there could be 7 taken in round one if someone gets desparate that misses out.  I probably over did it a little with the title.

The title is misleading. The only legitimate comparison is that a bunch of quarterbacks will likely be taken in the first round and three or four of them early. For this year’s class to dwarf 1983 we would have to wait 20 to 25 years and find out that four of these quarterbacks are in the Hall of Fame.The title is misleading. The only legitimate comparison is that a bunch of quarterbacks will likely be taken in the first round and three or four of them early. For this year’s class to dwarf 1983 we would have to wait 20 to 25 years and find out that four of these quarterbacks are in the Hall of Fame.

[Luxy312]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I think from the moment Gettleman arrived they were not going Quarterback. Obviously Darnold falling past #1 adds a dimension nobody was really expecting and I can absolutely see him being Gettleman's kind of Quarterback but I think he might be too bought in now to his idea that he is going to get talent, put it around Eli and try and win this year.  

 

If Darnold goes #1 I am 99.9% sure the Giants don't go QB.

If Allen goes #1 I'd still say 90%.  

 

I don't know why people simply ignore the GM's that are making the calls and play Madden with their picks.  Gettleman has a history of two things.  First, he doesn't trade down in the draft.  Second, he builds his defense through the draft early and often.  All signs for the Giants point not to QB with that second pick in the draft, but to Chubb.  By many scouting reports, Chubb is a "can't miss" prospect in this draft and immediately fills the void from trading JPP to the Buccs, way more so than the second best QB on the board.  

As for the 1983 draft class, I don't believe for a second that this draft will yield 3 HOF quarterbacks.  We'll likely see a repeat of the likes of Todd Blackledge, Tony Eason, and Ken O'Brien though.

[GunnerBill]

Just now, Luxy312 said:

 

I don't know why people simply ignore the GM's that are making the calls and play Madden with their picks.  Gettleman has a history of two things.  First, he doesn't trade down in the draft.  Second, he builds his defense through the draft early and often.  All signs for the Giants point not to QB with that second pick in the draft, but to Chubb.  By many scouting reports, Chubb is a "can't miss" prospect in this draft and immediately fills the void from trading JPP to the Buccs, way more so than the second best QB on the board.  

As for the 1983 draft class, I don't believe for a second that this draft will yield 3 HOF quarterbacks.  We'll likely see a repeat of the likes of Todd Blackledge, Tony Eason, and Ken O'Brien though.

 

Chubb is certainly the best player on my board and I think if the Giants stay at #2 that is who they will pick.  I do think they would be willing to trade down.... but it's going to be expensive.  I certainly don't think it is as simple as pick a QB or trade back.  Chubb is very much in the picture at #2.  

[Luxy312]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Chubb is certainly the best player on my board and I think if the Giants stay at #2 that is who they will pick.  I do think they would be willing to trade down.... but it's going to be expensive.  I certainly don't think it is as simple as pick a QB or trade back.  Chubb is very much in the picture at #2.  

 

I concur 100%.  They're not trading down for "even money" based on the pick value chart.  They're going to want as much of a premium as the Jets paid to move up.  To boot (and mostly based on their needs), I'm not sure they would be willing to move down into the bottom half of the draft, unless they get even more.  I think we can pretty much assume that the top-2 QB's go with #1 and #3.  Moving down past #5 could mean that they lose out on Chubb/Barkely/Fitzpatrick.  On my board, those are the only 3 "can't miss" QB prospects worthy of picking that high.  I have Nelson as a can't miss as well, but there's no way EVER that I have a guard in the top ten.

[cage]

3 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

You've written up so much good stuff on these QBs.  You have emphasized the importance of QB.  

 

Now you're saying a team and their new GM fresh off being fired are going to think they can get from being the 2nd worst team in the league, all the way to being champs in the time a 37 year old better than average but non team carrying QB has left and be ok with picking their next leader at 32 while their cross town rivals have the guy they could have taken starring in their lineup for a decade?

 

I'm leaning "nope" on that theory.

 

uh yeah...that!  I think Giants either take a QB or win an overpaid package to move out of #2

[BadLandsMeanie]

6 hours ago, Zerovotlz said:

 

 

1.  Cleveland. .....  I simply refuse to blieve they are taking Jeff Allen at 1. 

 

 

 

I would love it if they took Jeff Allen. And so would Jeff Allen!

 

But I bet Josh Allen would be annoyed!

[Jay_Fixit]

It would have to dwarf 2004 first. And I doubt that would happen.

 

In fact, I don’t even know what the thread really means.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Jay_Fixit

[Luxy312]

15 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

I would love it if they took Jeff Allen. And so would Jeff Allen!

 

But I bet Josh Allen would be annoyed!

 

I don't think they take Jeff Allen.  Probably pass on Jeremy Allen and Jaime Allen as well.  None of those guys are first round material.  LOL.

[BillsFan4]

Maybe I'm the only one, but I'm glad we look to be taking our shot on a QB in this draft as opposed to last year's draft. This is exactly what I wanted last year. I felt it was a weaker QB draft last season compared to this season. I wanted the Bills to wait and take their shot on a QB this year. 

 

I am far from sold on Mahomes, and we will see on Watson. He played well in his very limited time starting but let's see what he does when teams start specifically game planning for him. Plus he already has blown out an ACL in both knees now IIRC. That could become an issue for a mobile QB. 

 

So, as of now, no I wouldn't trade Tre White and our 1sts this year for Mahomes/Watson. I'm still hoping we can trade those 1sts and move up for Rosen/Darnold - both of which I would easily take over any QB in last year's draft.

I'd take Mayfield over Mahomes/Watson too. 

 

 

Daniel Jeremiah (who's very well respected in NFL circles, and who's word I value quite a bit) has 4 of the top 6 QBs of the last 3 years in this draft - Darnold, Rosen, Mayfield, Allen. Watson is rated #7, and Mahomes doesn't even make the list... 

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000922045/article/top-10-qb-prospects-of-past-3-nfl-draft-classes-darnold-no-1

[KD in CA]

3 sure-fire HOFers in this class?  Really?

[hondo in seattle]

1 hour ago, Luxy312 said:

 

I don't know why people simply ignore the GM's that are making the calls and play Madden with their picks.  Gettleman has a history of two things.  First, he doesn't trade down in the draft.  Second, he builds his defense through the draft early and often.  All signs for the Giants point not to QB with that second pick in the draft, but to Chubb.  By many scouting reports, Chubb is a "can't miss" prospect in this draft and immediately fills the void from trading JPP to the Buccs, way more so than the second best QB on the board.  

As for the 1983 draft class, I don't believe for a second that this draft will yield 3 HOF quarterbacks.  We'll likely see a repeat of the likes of Todd Blackledge, Tony Eason, and Ken O'Brien though.

 

 

Agree.  1983 had 6 QBs taken in the first round.  Four of those played in SBs.  Four in the Pro Bowl.  Three were inducted into the Hall.

 

I'll be shocked if this draft proves nearly as productive.

 

"More and more front offices have come to the realization that QB is more important now than it's ever been."

Huh?  1983 proves that GMs back then appreciated the value of the QB position way back then.   That's why they drafted 6 QBs in the first round.  We might see 5 this year.   GMs are generally bright people.  They haven't come to any new realization.  They've valued QBs for a long time now.  

Edited April 4, 2018 by hondo in seattle

[Domdab99]

Watson is one more knee injury away from being teddy Bridgewater. LOL at people anointing him so quickly. And Mahomes hasn't done a goddamned thing yet. 

[ndirish1978]

Title sounds lewd. I didn't know the OP was into that.

Edited April 4, 2018 by ndirish1978

[Luxy312]

1 hour ago, KD in CA said:

3 sure-fire HOFers in this class?  Really?

I really don't get it either.  I think this could easily be just like:
2011 - Newton, Locker, Gabbert, Ponder
2003 - Palmer, Leftwich, Boller, Grossman
2007 - Testaverde, Stouffer, Miller, Harbaugh

There were questions about every QB in all of those drafts, just like there are in this draft.  Just because they are picked early doesn't mean that they're all going to have success.  In every one of those drafts, players could have gone in almost any order.  I feel that the same holds true this year.  There's 4 guys that might be worthy of being picked first.  The 1983 draft certainly turned out great in hindsight, but there were some chunks of stool in there as well.  Do we trade up to get our Todd Blackledge or stay where we are at #12 for our Tony Eason?  We can also skip picking QB and get our Ken O'Brien at #22.  All sounds awesome.  LOL.

 

Edited April 4, 2018 by Luxy312

[SoTier]

7 hours ago, Gigs said:

I’d be surprised if 3 go in the 1st round. Every draft since 83 which had more than 2 hyped up QBs has been touted as the next “83 draft.”

 

Theres a way better chance only 1 or 2 go in the 1st. Also, there was 6 QBs taken in the first 35 picks of the 2011 draft, 4 in the 1st. Was that draft just as good as this, 2004 or 1983? 

 

Tbh, Darnold and Rosen are the only ones worth picking. It would be great if 5 QBs went in the top 10 because that’s 5 good players who were passed down towards 12. 

 

I can see 3 or 4 QBs going in the first round because, apparently like their fan bases, some NFL GMs seem to buy into the a significant amount of the hype and hysteria dished up by the media around the draft.  I think that Cleveland's GMs prior to the current regime certainly did that.  IMO, the Jests move up to #3 so early and without knowing which QBs will be available smacks of the same stupidity.  You are correct in noting that except for 1983 and 2004, most years with 3, 4 or 5 QBs taken in the first round don't actually produce that many successful QBs, much less "franchise QBs" from those first rounders.  The drafts since 1983 have seemed to yield 1 and sometimes 2 successful QBs from each draft whether there's 1 QB drafted in the first round or 4 or 5, and in the last few years, there seems to be more successful QBs coming out of the draft from the rounds after the first.  The chances of actually getting a "franchise" quality QB (a top notch, long term starter who becomes the face of the franchise) is much less because not all drafts produce one.  Between 1999 and 2014, the 2002, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2014 certainly failed to produce QBs who were good enough to be considered "franchise QBs" although some of those drafts produced successful QBs.  Taking a Daunte Culpepper or Ryan Tannehill or Jay Cutler at 11 or 12 is okay, but taking a Todd Blackledge or Joey Harrington at #2 is painful.  Trading up to get a bust like JP Losman is a disaster.

 

7 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

There is absolutely no chance that only two go in round one.  It is almost certain 3 go in the top 10.  

 

Only if the Bills or some other team trade up will 3 go in the top 10 IMO.  I don't see any of the teams in the top 10 except Cleveland and the Jests drafting a QB, including Denver which has Keenum as well as 2016 first rounder Paxton Lynch who was hurt most of last season.

 

5 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

It is NOT a crap shoot.  You have to evaluate them and then trust your evaluation skills.  

5 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

It's not a crap shoot. There are teams who consistently draft better than others.  They have better scouts and better process.  Nobody is going to hit on every pick but it is not some lottery either. Process wins and good evaluation wins.

 

The problem is that the evaluation skills that NFL teams use to judge draft QBs are woefully inadequate to enable teams to consistently pick good QBs in the draft, so yeah, it's a crap shoot.  I can only think of 2 teams in the last 20 years that successfully  transitioned directly from one franchise QB to another without missing a beat because they drafted his replacement: NE when Tom Brady replaced Drew Bledsoe and Green Bay when Aaron Rodgers replaced Brett Favre.  The NY Jests transitioned from one successful QB, Vinnie Testaverde, to another successful QB, Chad Pennington, but I wouldn't rank either as "franchise QBs".  Dallas may be a third team if Deshaun Watson Dak Prescott turns out to be a franchise QB (replacing Tony Romo who was an UDFA).

 

QBs who are #1 consensus picks seem to hit with regularity, but the percentage of successful QBs from the first round drops precipitously after #1, even for QBs drafted in the top  5 or top 10, and is depressingly low for QBs drafted in the bottom half of the first round.  My guess is that the success rate for QBs in the first round is significantly lower than for most other positions except perhaps WR.  That suggests to me that the evaluation criteria aren't measuring what needs to be measured, which are the very things that separate the Rivers, Rodgers, and Lucks etc from the Harringtons, Losmans, and Carrs.  So, unless there's a QB who's the #1 consensus pick in the draft, it's pretty much a crap shoot.

Edited April 4, 2018 by SoTier

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, SoTier said:

Dallas may be a third team if Deshaun Watson turns out to be a franchise QB (replacing Tony Romo who was an UDFA).

 

 

Either you mean Dak Prescott or the Texans and Cowboys have merged.  

[Luxy312]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Either you mean Dak Prescott or the Texans and Cowboys have merged.  

Is it the Houston Cowboys or the Dallas Texans now?