2019 NFL QB Draft Prospects

[germ-x]

42 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

It’s the success at an early stage of their career.   Along with the possession of the most important physical passing skills (placement/accuracy, anticipation and ability to throw players open), that combo is the best predictor of future NFL success.   The 2020 class’ success so far predicts a banner year next year with still another year of development.   The 2019 guys are in college terms finished products and over the same stage of development weren’t nearly as successful as the 2018 or 2020 class entering their final season nor enjoyed the same growth as the 2018 class in their final year.

Herbert was only guy to have the same level of early success and maintain growth until a very meh mid-October stretch against average competition that’s really dropped his stock.  Everyone else this year has had big up and downs that really show the Q marks.  Grier is probably the only one who has a longer degree of success but he’s 24+ entering the NFL his struggles shouldn’t be as pronounced as they’ve been.  Basically everyone but Haskins has been very up and down in what should be their banner year (and Haskins only has this year to go off).   Add in a much shorter prior level of success before their final year and the label of a meh top end class for 2019 is well earned.  

I think the “early success” is over exaggerated, how do you even measure that?  Like what is considered successful?

This also doesn’t take into account any type of team play or talent around them.  For example, Jalen Hurts was successful as a freshman because he played on the best team in college football.  Further many (Oregon one of them) have every QB in their system have success because of the systems that they run.

Early success/system are moot, IMO.  It ultimately comes down to if you have at least above average arm talent, accuracy, and can quickly process information, the processing part being the most essential attribute.

[Broncofan]

2 hours ago, germ-x said:

I think the “early success” is over exaggerated, how do you even measure that?  Like what is considered successful?

This also doesn’t take into account any type of team play or talent around them.  For example, Jalen Hurts was successful as a freshman because he played on the best team in college football.  Further many (Oregon one of them) have every QB in their system have success because of the systems that they run.

Early success/system are moot, IMO.  It ultimately comes down to if you have at least above average arm talent, accuracy, and can quickly process information, the processing part being the most essential attribute.

Absolutely 100 percent agreed you have to first own the pro skill set.  That's what disqualifies a guy like Hurts (and remember, I pointed out you have to own the key NFL-required skills first).   The early success is a very useful metric for positive predictive value, though, if it's combined with that very important prerequisite.  Different definitions, because let's face it, QB ratings are really meh at capturing QB play.   It's also important to factor in the competition faced.  In Tua/Fromm/Eason's case, though, playing so well against elite competition in their age-19 year, is a huge bonus.  So few do it that early.   For 2018, there were 4 guys though who checked the boxes easily - Darnold & Rosen super-young, Lamar & Baker later but still young enough to qualify.  And for 2020, another 4.   For 2019, only Herbert did.  Now Haskins is so young he checks that box, except for only having 1 year. 

Your argument about Herbert's flaws is valid and shows why it's not a perfect methodology.    And it's echoed by Herbert's struggles in what should have been a dominant final year against very average competition.   So, to be clear, it's not like 2020 is a lock - but especially if Haskins stays in school, we already have 4 guys entering 2020 where no one existed in 2019 save Herbert with the same prior success level - and as you said, against inferior competition and  a very college-QB-friendly-but-not-so-NFL-clear system.   To be clear, they also still need to excel in their final year to earn the franchise tag - just that as of now, they tick off a pretty special skill set box.  And that still leaves the possibility other later guys emerge to add to the depth of 2020.  2019 is basically all of the latter class of late comers minus Herbert (Haskins not having played significant snaps being the huge pop-up guy of course).

But by any measurement, the 2019 class is so meh at the top.  Don't believe in early success?  That's fine, but none of the guys except Grier really meets that.  But even with that removed, in their final year, none of the guys except Haskins were consistently dominant, and OMG all of the guys struggled hard against good D's and showed exploitable weaknesses, and in several cases, did that against just OK D's.   Which given it's their final year, is really alarming.  The 2018 class wasn't always perfect, but their overall performance and level of dominance their final year and displays of skill were far more consistent.  And that aforementioned success at very early age.   2020's class obviously needs to show their final year dominance, but they succeeded early, show the tools and QB-specific key skills, and faced elite competition when they did that (even more than 2018's). 

I mean, if QB evaluation was that easy, teams wouldn't be whiffing early so much lol.  It certainly doesn't disqualify guys outright. But it also gives a lot more comfort to spending such high draft capital.  Where we are likely to pick, it's safe to say no one will give the level of optimism that is normally warranted with Rd1 picks - more the squint & hope we had when Lynch got picked.    Given that if you whiff on a Rd1 pick, it kills an org for 3+ years...well, I get the lack of enthusiasm for this year's top end class (and that goes nuclear if Haskins decides to stay in school - that multiplies the chances several guys in the Grier/Jones / Lock  tier will already be gone, especially if WAS ends up picking ahead of us, which happens for sure if they are tied with us W-L wise, given our SoS is so far ahead of the other divisions).

[germ-x]

23 hours ago, Broncofan said:

Absolutely 100 percent agreed you have to first own the pro skill set.  That's what disqualifies a guy like Hurts (and remember, I pointed out you have to own the key NFL-required skills first).   The early success is a very useful metric for positive predictive value, though, if it's combined with that very important prerequisite.  Different definitions, because let's face it, QB ratings are really meh at capturing QB play.   It's also important to factor in the competition faced.  In Tua/Fromm/Eason's case, though, playing so well against elite competition in their age-19 year, is a huge bonus.  So few do it that early.   For 2018, there were 4 guys though who checked the boxes easily - Darnold & Rosen super-young, Lamar & Baker later but still young enough to qualify.  And for 2020, another 4.   For 2019, only Herbert did.  Now Haskins is so young he checks that box, except for only having 1 year. 

Your argument about Herbert's flaws is valid and shows why it's not a perfect methodology.    And it's echoed by Herbert's struggles in what should have been a dominant final year against very average competition.   So, to be clear, it's not like 2020 is a lock - but especially if Haskins stays in school, we already have 4 guys entering 2020 where no one existed in 2019 save Herbert with the same prior success level - and as you said, against inferior competition and  a very college-QB-friendly-but-not-so-NFL-clear system.   To be clear, they also still need to excel in their final year to earn the franchise tag - just that as of now, they tick off a pretty special skill set box.  And that still leaves the possibility other later guys emerge to add to the depth of 2020.  2019 is basically all of the latter class of late comers minus Herbert (Haskins not having played significant snaps being the huge pop-up guy of course).

But by any measurement, the 2019 class is so meh at the top.  Don't believe in early success?  That's fine, but none of the guys except Grier really meets that.  But even with that removed, in their final year, none of the guys except Haskins were consistently dominant, and OMG all of the guys struggled hard against good D's and showed exploitable weaknesses, and in several cases, did that against just OK D's.   Which given it's their final year, is really alarming.  The 2018 class wasn't always perfect, but their overall performance and level of dominance their final year and displays of skill were far more consistent.  And that aforementioned success at very early age.   2020's class obviously needs to show their final year dominance, but they succeeded early, show the tools and QB-specific key skills, and faced elite competition when they did that (even more than 2018's). 

I mean, if QB evaluation was that easy, teams wouldn't be whiffing early so much lol.  It certainly doesn't disqualify guys outright. But it also gives a lot more comfort to spending such high draft capital.  Where we are likely to pick, it's safe to say no one will give the level of optimism that is normally warranted with Rd1 picks - more the squint & hope we had when Lynch got picked.    Given that if you whiff on a Rd1 pick, it kills an org for 3+ years...well, I get the lack of enthusiasm for this year's top end class (and that goes nuclear if Haskins decides to stay in school - that multiplies the chances several guys in the Grier/Jones / Lock  tier will already be gone, especially if WAS ends up picking ahead of us, which happens for sure if they are tied with us W-L wise, given our SoS is so far ahead of the other divisions).

Lynch physically had everything, as well as the early success you have eluded to.  He also improved every year.

Lynch is who changed my evaluation of QBs.  He was a guy who physically had it all, big, athletic, cannon for an arm. He started as a freshman and had a poor year, drastically improved as a sophomore and had an excellent year, and then improved even more as a junior.  

Here is where my evaluation has changed. Lynch is literally the poster child of your assessment of what to look for in a QB (this isn’t a knock on you by the way, I used to buy this as well).  He physically checked, size, arm, athleticism, probably above average to borderline elite in every area.  Early success, another check.  His true freshman year was poor, but came out his sophomore year and threw 22 TDS to 9 INTs, then came out his junior year and threw 28 to 4.  So he also showed improvement, which is also something you’re looking for as it means he’s learning and getting better.

Fact of the matter is, he was a clown.  A reporter from Memphis that dealt with him for 3 years said he was a complete goof.  Hell he had a 3 musketeers look and seemed to lack any sort of competitiveness.  He happened to be in a system that asked him to do very little.

Then take Dak Prescott.  Not that I think Prescott is going to be the next Manning.  But aside from running he’s NFL above average.  Didn’t have success early, 10 TDS through his first 2 years, then played until he was a senior.  Dak, however is competitive as hell and seems to be able to process information rather quickly. 

Thats what it comes down too.  Do you have above average talent, are you competitive, and do you process information quickly.  

 

[jsthomp2007]

Let's not underestimate the "it" factor.  I mean, all of these stats and trend analysis is great, but I think where Elway and Co, miss the boat is simply talking to the guy.  I hate to bring it up, but Tebow didn't have 90% of what Lynch had; but, he won games and guys rallied around him to the very last minute of the very last second of every game (which, I think that year took a good seven years off my life from the stress Tebow put me though that year).  I have to think too that guys like Brees and Wilson just kind of have "it.": And, they are reasonably talented too.  Luck and Wentz kind of have "it" and truck loads of talent and they check the box on everything you want from a QB: big, tall, strong armed, smart...but, outside of Wentz year last year and Luck from yesteryear, they haven't done much other than get hurt a lot.  

Not sure if I'd like Tebow on the team again, but I think the Broncos need to do a way better job in their interviews with guys.  I am surprised Elway doesn't recognize the it factor in QBs, considering he was one...maybe greatness is blinded to see greatness...certainly Michael Jordan can't find the corner stone to his team.  I don't know...I don't get it.  In some ways I wish the Broncos would have groomed Tebow behind Manning.  One major flaw of his was reading defenses...Manning was one of the best ever at it...couldn't have Tebow just sat for four to five years, worked on the mechanics and learned behind Manning?  Then we wouldn't be in this QB quandary.  

[Broncofan]

1 hour ago, germ-x said:

Lynch physically had everything, as well as the early success you have eluded to.  He also improved every year.

Lynch is who changed my evaluation of QBs.  He was a guy who physically had it all, big, athletic, cannon for an arm. He started as a freshman and had a poor year, drastically improved as a sophomore and had an excellent year, and then improved even more as a junior.  

Here is where my evaluation has changed. Lynch is literally the poster child of your assessment of what to look for in a QB (this isn’t a knock on you by the way, I used to buy this as well).  He physically checked, size, arm, athleticism, probably above average to borderline elite in every area.  Early success, another check.  His true freshman year was poor, but came out his sophomore year and threw 22 TDS to 9 INTs, then came out his junior year and threw 28 to 4.  So he also showed improvement, which is also something you’re looking for as it means he’s learning and getting better.

Fact of the matter is, he was a clown.  A reporter from Memphis that dealt with him for 3 years said he was a complete goof.  Hell he had a 3 musketeers look and seemed to lack any sort of competitiveness.  He happened to be in a system that asked him to do very little.

Then take Dak Prescott.  Not that I think Prescott is going to be the next Manning.  But aside from running he’s NFL above average.  Didn’t have success early, 10 TDS through his first 2 years, then played until he was a senior.  Dak, however is competitive as hell and seems to be able to process information rather quickly. 

Thats what it comes down too.  Do you have above average talent, are you competitive, and do you process information quickly.  

 

I see the reasons why you doubt if you believe Lynch was a poster child for early success gone wrong, but I think your premise that Lynch met the criteria at that time he was drafted is way off-base.    His breakout age was 20-21 - not 19+, like the other guys - and it was in the American West conference, so the level of competition is a huge detractor.  They faced a top 25 team 4x in his career and otherwise a bunch of meh teams (and if you remember, Auburn's exposed him badly - everyone points to the Ole Miss game, but forgets the Auburn game).  Add in that he had never taken a single snap from under center in college in a more pure spread O, he was rightfully seen as a physical-tools-only guy who in fact lacked the NFL-specific QB-ready skills, and needed 2+ years of development time.   If you read the debates on taking Lynch, those were raised from Day 1, and in the summer before we even saw him play.     And as much as Josh Allen remains a polarizing prospect, Lynch wasn't near Allen's profile ceiling-wise.   So it wasn't like ppl were talking generational talent ceiling.

I can understand why you'd doubt any system that would have touted Lynch - but Lynch was the pure definition of tools-based project, and definitely not an early breakout. The early breakout factor actually raised a big flag on Lynch.    His breakout metrics were actually 55th percentile or worse.   And he was all tools, and faith on developing the NFL-level required skills.  In case you think this is selective memory - https://www.playerprofiler.com/nfl/paxton-lynch - note the 55th percentile breakout age, other methods that factor in level of competition had him at sub-40th.   If anything, this factor said watch out.   

PP is the only free site, so sadly the other sources aren't so easily referenced, but it's the same idea - Lynch wasn't some early breakout, and given where he played, it wasn't until his final year that buzz started about him.   That's the case for almost everyone this year except Herbert - and for the few that had some early interest, it disappeared for months when they struggled this year in games against OK/good teams.   Incidentally, if you search Darnold, Rosen, Jackson & Mayfield - they all rate at 85th percentile or higher  (I'd ding the #'s a little playing the Pac12 and Big12, but that's still a much higher baseline # to work off).  Again, you still need the QB-specific throwing skills, but I would say we all would recognize they had the refined skills (not tools, but QB skills).   Sadly PP only rates NFL players, so we don't have the 2020 class - but their level of success in their freshman and sophomore classes, and since it was against Big 10 / ACC / SEC competition, well, I think you'll agree that it will rate them quite highly in this regard.  

And just to be clear - QB evaluation requires far more than just the throwing tools & early success - the in-between the ear skills matters a ton, as does pocket awareness, eyes up with pressure, mechanics, etc (I mean, the reason why everyone missed on Deshaun Watson was because his in-between the ears and anticipation/pocket awareness skills are so elite, they make his average tools play up so much).  So don't take this like I'm suggesting it's the sole determinant of success.   It's not like the 2020 class is a lock to be great.  And the discussion once their college career is done and draft talk starts in earnest isn't going to be solely off those 2 skill sets either (NFL-specific throwing abilities & early success against good competition).   But when I'm at year 2 (or 1+ year away from draft eligibility) of a college player's evaluation, the only 2 things I can reliably use as positive outlier markers are a NFL-specific skill evaluation and early-age success (and a huge upgrade vs. good competition, and a downgrade for meh competition).    But by every definition, Lynch was physical-tool guy, with questionable NFL-level QB abilities and an unspectacular level of breakout age (against very meh competition).   There will be guys who will be late bloomers, and some of them will still succeed - but there's just a lot more noise in that group.  Lynch actually belongs in that latter group.   

The 2017's skill-profile and early-breakout is what had me excited when I first looked at Darnold/Rosen - Jackson & Mayfield eventually convinced me they were still worth a 1st (just not at our range), still later than the other 2 (and Lamar well back, since a full redshirt year would have been the ideal plan), but part of what swayed me was their early breakout (and I definitely was too hard on Mayfield for the Big12 competition, although again I still think Darnold/Rosen will be studs barring injury).    Right now, the 2020 class has 4 guys (if Haskins stays), for which 2 will have age-19 breakout criteria met vs. elite competition (Fromm & Tu'a), 1 who was good at age 18 vs. the SEC (Eason), and a mid-range breakout age but whose performance was staggeringly impressive, and against strong competition (Haskins).    They still will need to show year 3 growth next year and show development in the in-between ears skills, but it's hard not to be excited, when you factor in that other late bloomers will only add to the pool's depth, even if 1-2 of those guys regress.  Basically everyone in the 2019 class fits into the latter group of late bloomers, except Herbert, and he's been one of the less impressive guys this year.   

But yeah, it's also not a foregone conclusion that 2020's class will have 3-4 elite guys yet - but the early success / NFL-skill set (again, not just pure raw tools, but the hardest NFL skills for QB's, placement/accuracy, anticipation and throwing guys open), they're there with those guys.  They'll still need to show more in their 3rd year, and we will need to see how their in-between-the-ear skills develop over time.   But if you think Lynch is an early bloomer, well, I can see why you'd be skeptical - but a more objective look and draft analysis at that time actually said the opposite on Lynch (and was borne out, along with the is-he-smart-enough & the raw-tool but low-skill label).

 

[thebestever6]

With Haskins getting a first round grade that helps the case for him to leave early. 

[broncofan48]

I want to hear people's takes on Kyler Murray.  Sounding like he might try to play football, not sure if it's true or not but what do you guys think about him?

@Broncofan

@Counselor

@germ-x

[AnAngryAmerican]

This isn't a criticism of Jeff Legwold, who is right there with Troy Renck as the best Broncos beat writer, but his latest piece at ESPN is titled "Case Keenum wants to show he's the Broncos answer at quarterback." If that's the case, no pun intended, then why hasn't Case played better in the last 15 games? Why is it about this week against a team that has a chance to get the No. 1 seed in the AFC? 

Truth is that Case is exactly who (some of us) thought he was when he was signed in March. 

[BaldyBronco]

This question is not directly related to the string, but relevant anyway.

Does anyone have any idea or resource that they can point to for scenarios for the Broncos draft position.  One example,  assuming we lose this weekend; Atlanta and Tampa Bay play one another this weekend.  This assures that one team will have a better record and one team the same.  There are 5 other teams that could end up 6-10.  What is the factor that would move us up the board and how far can we go?

If we are gonna have any shot at the #1 QB we have to be in the top 8.

Any thoughts here?

[germ-x]

3 minutes ago, BaldyBronco said:

This question is not directly related to the string, but relevant anyway.

Does anyone have any idea or resource that they can point to for scenarios for the Broncos draft position.  One example,  assuming we lose this weekend; Atlanta and Tampa Bay play one another this weekend.  This assures that one team will have a better record and one team the same.  There are 5 other teams that could end up 6-10.  What is the factor that would move us up the board and how far can we go?

If we are gonna have any shot at the #1 QB we have to be in the top 8.

Any thoughts here?

I don’t know how all the scenarios work out but the earliest Denver can pick is 7 and the lastest I believe I read was 16.  

[Broncofan]

10 minutes ago, BaldyBronco said:

This question is not directly related to the string, but relevant anyway.

Does anyone have any idea or resource that they can point to for scenarios for the Broncos draft position.  One example,  assuming we lose this weekend; Atlanta and Tampa Bay play one another this weekend.  This assures that one team will have a better record and one team the same.  There are 5 other teams that could end up 6-10.  What is the factor that would move us up the board and how far can we go?

If we are gonna have any shot at the #1 QB we have to be in the top 8.

Any thoughts here?

Tankathon is your friend here - http://www.tankathon.com/nfl

The problem is that for a 5-10 team to win, their SoS then gets worse, while if DEN loses to get to 6-10, then their SoS gets even better - so really, of all of the 5-10 teams, the only team that could be better than us SoS (and so pick after us) is JAX.   The team with a lower SoS picks earlier.   Our high SoS makes us pick later than most of the teams around us (and remember, we lose, our SoS only improves).   The problem is that as most games are in-division, the shift in SoS isn't nearly as prominent (since all divisions have 2 winners & 2 losers - there's some variance due to the unique opponents teams have faced but it's not nearly as much of a swing as when the matchups are in-division).

Looking at the schedule, JAX plays HOU, who is trying to get seeding and a possible bye.   CAR plays @ NO (who has nothing to play for, but CAR is now on their 3rd string QB lol), and ATL plays @TB (that's definitely a game they could lose).    Realistically, if we lose, we likely stay around 11-12 (really fortunate sequence has us at 10, but 11-12 far more likely).   Win and we likely drop to the mid-teens.

[BaldyBronco]

3 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

Tankathon is your friend here - http://www.tankathon.com/nfl

The problem is that for a 5-10 team to win, their SoS then gets worse, while if DEN loses to get to 6-10, then their SoS gets even better - so really, of all of the 5-10 teams, the only team that could be better than us SoS (and so pick after us) is JAX.   The team with a lower SoS picks earlier.   Our high SoS makes us pick later than most of the teams around us (and remember, we lose, our SoS only improves).   The problem is that as most games are in-division, the shift in SoS isn't nearly as prominent (since all divisions have 2 winners & 2 losers - there's some variance due to the unique opponents teams have faced but it's not nearly as much of a swing as when the matchups are in-division).

Looking at the schedule, JAX plays HOU, who is trying to get seeding and a possible bye.   CAR plays @ NO (who has nothing to play for, but CAR is now on their 3rd string QB lol), and ATL plays @TB (that's definitely a game they could lose).    Realistically, if we lose, we likely stay around 11-12 (really fortunate sequence has us at 10, but 11-12 far more likely).

So between the Chargers, Rams and Chiefs, we lose pretty much everywhere on SoS, even if we lose.  I would think that 10-12 is the best we could hope for.  Having the Chargers and Chiefs playing at the same time assures that they both have to play to win, as opposed to the Chiefs paying early and the Chargers knowing if they were playing for anything.  God I hope this is the last season I go in to Week 17 HOPING we lose....

[Broncofan]

2 hours ago, broncofan48 said:

I want to hear people's takes on Kyler Murray.  Sounding like he might try to play football, not sure if it's true or not but what do you guys think about him?

@Broncofan

@Counselor

@germ-x

Murray's actions in February will speak volumes - that's when he reports to MLB Spring Training.   If he passes up the Combine to report to MLB training camp, teams would be nuts to spend a Rd1-2 pick like some pundits are suggesting.    On the other hand, he'd have to return the guaranteed $ he's already accepted from the A's.   

We discussed the $ differences earlier - to say it's not so clearly weighted to baseball or football is an understatement - but the notion that football is a better financial choice is unfounded, because baseball's $$ is guaranteed once you hit arbitration, and long-term deals are 100 percent guaranteed.    It's really going to come down to how much he loves 1 sport over the other and his preference - not as a $$ decision.   On the flip side is if he tries to have his cake and eat it too and show up to OAK Training Camp and remain undecided - he's not doing the Combine. 

Forget the Dec. 29 and possible Championship game - if he decides to skip MLB Training Camp, then we can get serious about Murray as a 2019 QB draft prospect.   If he skips the Combine in Feb to go to OAK Training Camp, it would be sheer lunacy to even contemplate a Rd2-3 pick on him.

[broncofan48]

28 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

Murray's actions in February will speak volumes - that's when he reports to MLB Spring Training.   If he passes up the Combine to report to MLB training camp, teams would be nuts to spend a Rd1-2 pick like some pundits are suggesting.    On the other hand, he'd have to return the guaranteed $ he's already accepted from the A's.   

We discussed the $ differences earlier - to say it's not so clearly weighted to baseball or football is an understatement - but the notion that football is a better financial choice is unfounded, because baseball's $$ is guaranteed once you hit arbitration, and long-term deals are 100 percent guaranteed.    It's really going to come down to how much he loves 1 sport over the other and his preference - not as a $$ decision.   On the flip side is if he tries to have his cake and eat it too and show up to OAK Training Camp and remain undecided - he's not doing the Combine. 

Forget the Dec. 29 and possible Championship game - if he decides to skip MLB Training Camp, then we can get serious about Murray as a 2019 QB draft prospect.   If he skips the Combine in Feb to go to OAK Training Camp, it would be sheer lunacy to even contemplate a Rd2-3 pick on him.

Oh I think he would be dumb to not pick baseball but I meant assuming he declares for the NFL.  How is he as a prospect etc

[Broncofan]

48 minutes ago, broncofan48 said:

Oh I think he would be dumb to not pick baseball but I meant assuming he declares for the NFL.  How is he as a prospect etc

Yeah, I hear that.   The problem with Murray's football assessment is that he's basically built himself as a baseball player frame/build-wise.   He gets away with it in college because the O the Sooners run and the protections in place.  Now the NFL protections in place are certainly very good for QB's - but the O's most teams run would definitely require him to put on more bulk that he's doing right now, or have insane NFL-level ability to avoid punishment.   He's 20 lbs lighter than either WIlson or Mayfield were leaving college.    Basically built to play CF, the lean, cut build.   The Combine is going to be huge for him, because stuff like hand size, his agility / explosion, ability to change arm angles with different throws, they're all going to matter.    It's also why skipping it to make it to MLB Training Camp would make a high pick an insane proposition for any team, not just us.

Wilson was able to break the mold for 3-4 very important reasons - huge paws, incredible arm strength, but most importantly, great pocket awareness & read ability, and topped it off with the ability to throw the ball at all different arm angles (a huge way to negate his shorter height).   Watson's average athletic traits were overcome by insane anticipation/placement and pocket awareness.    It's very true that size isn't needed to succeed as a QB nowadays - but there are key skills that come with the successful short (Wilson) / average athlete (Watson) QB's.    

One final comment I'd make - Elway's scouting of Drew Lock is pretty worrisome that he's not changing his MO yet.   Basically, Elway scouted 2 guys so far early in the draft process - Herbert & Lock.    Two tall, prototype-build, great-tools types, but in Lock's case, serious Q's about the actual football-ready QB skill set (at least Herbert showed off the NFL QB skills before getting hurt in 2017 and for the first 5-6 weeks in 2018, then really crashed hard - don't blame him for wanting to stay in school, his mojo was all bad after Oct/Nov).  God I hope I'm wrong, but scouting Herbert & Lock as his 1st 2 guys would suggest he's sticking to the classic formula for identifying his draft targets.