What player do you take if...

"hitman8 wrote:

Had not heard. In that case you could take Jonathan Taylor or Deandre Swift with that spot.

I have a hard time seeing them last that long (or Dobbins for that matter). I also doubt that safety lasts that long, most mocks have him in the first as a 1b to Delpit. Obviously things change, but that seems overly optimistic.

I do think that's ultimately a decent spot to look at Josh Jones, though I wonder if Grier would take a tackle in round 1 after trading away a round 1 tackle.

After the Senior Bowl, Anae will probably not be around in the fourth round. Would be great value with him and Duvernay in that round if that scenario played out.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

And you havent been remotely relevant since then, until you finally had a guy play like one this year.

I dont know how that isnt obvious, it's like a big flashing neon sign.

The Titans (and Browns) are model examples of why you DON'T take a QB just because you need one. You take one when you think he is the right player and you'd better be right. History says that you are more likely to be wrong. I would love to know how many of the misses were taken by teams that weren't really sure.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

The Titans (and Browns) are model examples of why you DON'T take a QB just because you need one. You take one when you think he is the right player and you'd better be right. History says that you are more likely to be wrong. I would love to know how many of the misses were taken by teams that weren't really sure.

I disagree. You keep taking QBs until you get the right one. The ownership has to be willing to move on and not stick with a mediocre QB.

All I can say is I hope we can get Tua at #5. I would trade up for him, but I don't like the idea of getting fleeced by the Lions. If it's reasonable, then I say let's do it. With Fitzpatrick, I have supported taking Love at #5 if we can't get Tua, but I think Tua is the better choice, and we need to do what we can to land him in Miami.

"Rick 1966 wrote:

I disagree. You keep taking QBs until you get the right one. The ownership has to be willing to move on and not stick with a mediocre QB.

GM's consistently go all-in on demonstrating the sunk cost fallacy. We saw it with Mariota, we saw it with Winston. We are seeing it with Mitchell Trubisky. The Cardinals decision to move on from Rosen in year 1 was bold and impressive. We will see if their trash drunk of a GM can build a team around him and if Kliffy is a good coach or not, but Murray showed he belonged, whereas Rosen was straight garbage.

"Rick 1966 wrote:

I disagree. You keep taking QBs until you get the right one. The ownership has to be willing to move on and not stick with a mediocre QB.

Working out great for the Browns.....

"Rick 1966 wrote:

I disagree. You keep taking QBs until you get the right one. The ownership has to be willing to move on and not stick with a mediocre QB.

I have the extreme opposite feeling. Do your research, don't be impulsive, make sure that you feel right, and then take your guy when the chance is there. And then, give him time, let him grow, and don't pull the plug for at least three or four seasons unless its a total disaster that's clearly his fault, or he's a problem off the field.

"Rick 1966 wrote:

I disagree. You keep taking QBs until you get the right one. The ownership has to be willing to move on and not stick with a mediocre QB.

You keep wasting 1st rders because you fail to land a franchise QB? Thats horrible GM-ing skills.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

I have the extreme opposite feeling. Do your research, don't be impulsive, make sure that you feel right, and then take your guy when the chance is there. And then, give him time, let him grow, and don't pull the plug for at least three or four seasons unless its a total disaster that's clearly his fault, or he's a problem off the field.

This, PLUS build a quality OL that will do a decent job of protecting him that can also open up some holes for the running game. Please no cut-rate O-lines this time around Grier.

"Surfs Up 99 wrote:

This, PLUS build a quality OL that will do a decent job of protecting him that can also open up some holes for the running game. Please no cut-rate O-lines this time around Grier.

Always. If the OL sucks, then its never fully the quarterback's fault. Honestly, its never fully the quarterback's fault, but without at least an average line, you never really know how good the QB is capable of. Same goes for having at least adequate coaching.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

I have the extreme opposite feeling. Do your research, don't be impulsive, make sure that you feel right, and then take your guy when the chance is there. And then, give him time, let him grow, and don't pull the plug for at least three or four seasons unless its a total disaster that's clearly his fault, or he's a problem off the field.

The first part about "do your research" sounds good in theory, but the problem is that pro scouts just aren't that good at QB evals. They're not good on an absolute scale and they're not good on a relative scale. On an absolute scale just look at the huge number of misses even when teams get to pick high in the draft, and on a relative scale you so often see the 1st QB taken not being the best from that draft class.

The second part about not parting with a QB after 3-4 seasons flies in the face of statistics that show that most QB's tend to remain relatively stable in ability from about year 4 starting.

So I also think one should keep taking QB's until you find the right one, though I wouldn't advocate using a high pick on a QB each time precisely because QB evals aren't that good. I think using multiple mid-round picks on QB's while evaluating the current starter is a good idea, only using a top pick when you have a chance at a top prospect (i.e., which does correspond to a slightly better chance of success).

"cbrad wrote:

The first part about "do your research" sounds good in theory, but the problem is that pro scouts just aren't that good at QB evals. They're not good on an absolute scale and they're not good on a relative scale. On an absolute scale just look at the huge number of misses even when teams get to pick high in the draft, and on a relative scale you so often see the 1st QB taken not being the best from that draft class.

The second part about not parting with a QB after 3-4 seasons flies in the face of statistics that show that most QB's tend to remain relatively stable in ability from about year 4 starting.

So I also think one should keep taking QB's until you find the right one, though I wouldn't advocate using a high pick on a QB each time precisely because QB evals aren't that good. I think using multiple mid-round picks on QB's while evaluating the current starter is a good idea, only using a top pick when you have a chance at a top prospect (i.e., which does correspond to a slightly better chance of success).

But the big problem is that if you don't give the QB time, then you need and expect him to be good right away, and often to be good right away on a team that isn't very good. And we all know that a lot of guys take some time to develop, and need to do it with help. So if you just keep tossing guys to the side if they aren't lights out from day one, then you're giving up on some that can and will get better, and essentially just waiting for a miracle.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

But the big problem is that if you don't give the QB time, then you need and expect him to be good right away, and often to be good right away on a team that isn't very good. And we all know that a lot of guys take some time to develop, and need to do it with help. So if you just keep tossing guys to the side if they aren't lights out from day one, then you're giving up on some that can and will get better, and essentially just waiting for a miracle.

3-4 seasons is statistically speaking enough time. Yes, you'll miss a few, but giving a QB too much time also means you lose more opportunities to find a franchise QB. Besides, like I said I'd advocate using mid-round picks WHILE evaluating the current starter before you decide to use a high round pick again.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

Working out great for the Browns.....

Baker Mayfield is a good QB and if he had a competent coach, he'd be doing a lot better.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

But the big problem is that if you don't give the QB time, then you need and expect him to be good right away, and often to be good right away on a team that isn't very good. And we all know that a lot of guys take some time to develop, and need to do it with help. So if you just keep tossing guys to the side if they aren't lights out from day one, then you're giving up on some that can and will get better, and essentially just waiting for a miracle.

How many QBs in the last fifteen years have taken more than 4 seasons as a starter to show they were a franchise QB?

Since our Oline has sucked for so long why don't we just spend our entire draft on linemen?:crapstrom:

"ripper1961 wrote:

Since our Oline has sucked for so long why don't we just spend our entire draft on linemen?:crapstrom:

I would not complain if we used three of our first five picks on the OL. We'll see what happens in UFA first.

"Rick 1966 wrote:

Baker Mayfield is a good QB and if he had a competent coach, he'd be doing a lot better.

Same thing was said about Tannehill..... at least that turned out to be true. We'll see about Mayfield.

"cbrad wrote:

So I also think one should keep taking QB's until you find the right one, though I wouldn't advocate using a high pick on a QB each time precisely because QB evals aren't that good. I think using multiple mid-round picks on QB's while evaluating the current starter is a good idea, only using a top pick when you have a chance at a top prospect (i.e., which does correspond to a slightly better chance of success).

How do you propose properly evaluating all of those QBs? The likelihood of a mid round pick developing into anything other that a backup is much less than a high pick.
Since 2000, the number of QBs by round that became franchise QBs:

Round 2: 1 - Brees
Round 3: 1 - Wilson
Round 4: 2 - Prescott, Cousins
Round 5: 0
Round 6: 1 - Brady
Round 7: 0
Undrafted: at least one - Romo

There are a handful of other that became decent starters - Carr, Dalton, Fitzpatrick, Foles. I'm sure some will disagree that Prescott and Cousins meet the definition of franchise QB.

It was a quick check and I could be missing some but there were dozens of QBs taken in that timeframe.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

How do you propose properly evaluating all of those QBs? The likelihood of a mid round pick developing into anything other that a backup is much less than a high pick.
Since 2000, the number of QBs by round that became franchise QBs:

Round 2: 1 - Brees
Round 3: 1 - Wilson
Round 4: 2 - Prescott, Cousins
Round 5: 0
Round 6: 1 - Brady
Round 7: 0
Undrafted: at least one - Romo

There are a handful of other that became decent starters - Carr, Dalton, Fitzpatrick, Foles. I'm sure some will disagree that Prescott and Cousins meet the definition of franchise QB.

It was a quick check and I could be missing some but there were dozens of QBs taken in that timeframe.

You arent wrong. But its also because QBs are so frequently over drafted. Guys who should go in the second and third are taken in the first all the time.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

How do you propose properly evaluating all of those QBs? The likelihood of a mid round pick developing into anything other that a backup is much less than a high pick.
Since 2000, the number of QBs by round that became franchise QBs:

Round 2: 1 - Brees
Round 3: 1 - Wilson
Round 4: 2 - Prescott, Cousins
Round 5: 0
Round 6: 1 - Brady
Round 7: 0
Undrafted: at least one - Romo

There are a handful of other that became decent starters - Carr, Dalton, Fitzpatrick, Foles. I'm sure some will disagree that Prescott and Cousins meet the definition of franchise QB.

It was a quick check and I could be missing some but there were dozens of QBs taken in that timeframe.

The odds of a mid- or low-round pick developing into a franchise QB are definitely MUCH lower than with a high round pick, but it's clearly greater than zero. All I'm saying is why not have your backup also be someone you can evaluate for potential rather than signing some vet for backup that you KNOW won't ever develop into a franchise QB?

Remember, I'm not advocating NOT using a high round pick on a QB when there's evidence your current starter isn't up to task. I wanted us to use our 1st rounder (if necessary with a trade up) in 2017 on a QB after Tannehill had a season ending injury (we might have gotten Mahomes or Watson had we done that!), and I want us to use our first pick this year (again if necessary with trade up) to get Tua.

Point is.. using a high round pick every 3-5 years AND using multiple mid/low round picks in intervening years should give any coaching staff a better opportunity to find a franchise QB than not doing so.

Honestly, I'm not in love with any of the QBs in this draft...except a pre-injury Tua, but it wouldn't bother me if they took him at 5. I don't believe we'll have a chance at a true franchise QB this year if he doesn't pan out. The LAST thing I'd do would be bring in Tua and put him under fire, even after resting a year, until they can PROVE they can fix this disaster of an O line...that has been a disaster for MANY years. I'd rather build the team first.

If Burrow (will be) and Tua (may be) are gone, I'd be fine with dropping back out of #5 if there's a good deal on the table, unless Simmons is sitting there...that dude is insane. If Simmons is on the board and they pass on him, I'm done with Grier, personally.

Pick up Fromm later on and groom him, worst case, but realize at that point you're probably still in the market for rookie QB talent going forward. If he even turns out to be a decent backup, score. If he ends up franchise level, home run. Outside of obvious guys like Luck, its just so damn hard to hit on a QB.

"PhinFan1968 wrote:

Honestly, I'm not in love with any of the QBs in this draft...except a pre-injury Tua, but it wouldn't bother me if they took him at 5. I don't believe we'll have a chance at a true franchise QB this year if he doesn't pan out. The LAST thing I'd do would be bring in Tua and put him under fire, even after resting a year, until they can PROVE they can fix this disaster of an O line...that has been a disaster for MANY years. I'd rather build the team first.

If Burrow (will be) and Tua (may be) are gone, I'd be fine with dropping back out of #5 if there's a good deal on the table, unless Simmons is sitting there...that dude is insane. If Simmons is on the board and they pass on him, I'm done with Grier, personally.

Pick up Fromm later on and groom him, worst case, but realize at that point you're probably still in the market for rookie QB talent going forward. If he even turns out to be a decent backup, score. If he ends up franchise level, home run. Outside of obvious guys like Luck, its just so damn hard to hit on a QB.

On top of that the Dolphins talent level on the front 7 on the oline doesnt impress me at all. Its much more important fixing that front first than throwing your fire power on a QB...

Every good GM has come in and build that oline and made the team a winning franchise.

Starting with the Colts- the moron that destroyed Luck and never did fix that line to give him good protection, finally got fired. They hired Ballard from the Ravens and they immediately turned that team around by using their early pick fixing that front line.... Jon Robinson did the samething with the Titans organization..

They are alot of other examples of teams improving because they have addressed fixing the oline.

Not sure it would be smart drafting a QB when your oline cant give him 2seconds in the pocket.

"cbrad wrote:

The odds of a mid- or low-round pick developing into a franchise QB are definitely MUCH lower than with a high round pick, but it's clearly greater than zero. All I'm saying is why not have your backup also be someone you can evaluate for potential rather than signing some vet for backup that you KNOW won't ever develop into a franchise QB?

Remember, I'm not advocating NOT using a high round pick on a QB when there's evidence your current starter isn't up to task. I wanted us to use our 1st rounder (if necessary with a trade up) in 2017 on a QB after Tannehill had a season ending injury (we might have gotten Mahomes or Watson had we done that!), and I want us to use our first pick this year (again if necessary with trade up) to get Tua.

Point is.. using a high round pick every 3-5 years AND using multiple mid/low round picks in intervening years should give any coaching staff a better opportunity to find a franchise QB than not doing so.

There is just not enough time or roster positions to properly evaluate the mid/low round picks to take one so often. You need the starter, and a backup you can count on. That leaves one spot for the developmental guy. He is not getting the reps in practice. How are you going to evaluate him in a year or two? You also have to pick guys that can run your current offense, otherwise practice will be a mess.

IMO, it is just not feasible and that is why no teams do it. If there were unlimited roster spots for developmental QBs, then I'd say go for it.