Billl Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 The premise of this thread is flawed. Teams aren’t giving up more than they ever have. SF is using the 3rd overall pick on a QB, and they gave up fair value to acquire that pick. Top QB prospects have historically been taken at the top of the draft, and draft value charts haven’t really fluctuated much. If the 3rd overall pick was a $20 bill, SF traded them a $10, a $5, and 5 ones. The OP should really be broken into 2 separate questions. 1. Is the third overall pick too much for a QB? (No) 2. Is what the 49ers gave up to get that pick too much? (Maybe, but it’s more or less in line with the draft value chart). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paup 1995MVP Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 On 3/30/2021 at 2:29 AM, Thurman#1 said: Chad Pennington was a likely future Hall of Famer till the arm injuries, so bad comparison. And while Tua doesn't have a gun, he's got a stronger arm than Pennington did after the injuries. Tua has a starter-quality arm. The question about him is whether he can develop an NFL-quality head, as far as making the right decisions quickly. Wait, you're saying that giving them to you to develop is ... not a good idea? Is this an autocorrect problem? Gonna disagree with you on both. Pennington was no Hall Of Famer. Maybe on the Marshall Wall of Fame with Byron Leftwich and Randy Moss. But he never had a cannon. And Tua's arm is nothing special. Did you not watch him play last year for the Fish? Maybe its the offense Brian Flores has installed. But he sure reminded a lot of Trent Edwards with his dinking and dunking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddie's Dead Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 On 3/29/2021 at 12:51 PM, DefenseWins said: The Bills got Josh Allen for a whole lot less. They moved up from #12 to #7 for picks #12, #53, #56 and got pick #255 back in the trade with Tampa. Is three #1 future picks too much to give up for an unproven QB? Sure, I think Allen, as he has turned out, might be worth that many top picks but you could also end up with a Sam Darnold. Any thoughts? And the Bears got Tribitsky for much more. Never know, helped in 2018 that there were a number of top rated QB's so kept the price down. Allen had questions too, likely had the most potential, but also could just as easily been a bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted April 1, 2021 Share Posted April 1, 2021 (edited) Here's a reason why teams are willing to give up so much for a highly rated QB I looked at all the drafts since the modern draft began in the mid 1960s with when the AFL-NFL war ended. Your best shot of getting the long term answer at QB is in the top 10 picks of the draft. The hit rate on top 10 QBs is about 50%. Now this becomes a glass half full or half empty issue, but 50% is pretty high compared with the rest of the draft. Once you go past pick 10, the rest of the 1st round drops to a 30% hit rate. That's consistent with the Bills last 3 #1s below pick 10: Kelly, Losman, Manuel. Now you can try to find your guy in the 2nd round. Hits include Brees, Favre, Cunningham, Esaison,... but the hit rate goes down to 20%, and its been getting tougher in recent years to find a starter in the 2nd round. The only recent 2nd rounders who became starters were D. Carr, Garoppolo, Dalton & Kaepernick. Philadelphia is hoping Hurts can be added to that list, but the jury is still out on him. So teams know that to have much more than just a shot in the dark, the best way to get your long term answer at QB is a top 10 pick. Edited April 1, 2021 by Albany,n.y. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts