2019 NFL QB Draft Prospects

[BroncoSojia]

I'm fine with Jones, Haskins, or Lock. I think all three have the potential to be franchise QBs.

[AKRNA]

32 minutes ago, broncos67 said:

In today's NFL, you don't have the luxury of "developing a QB." The vast majority of competitive teams are winning with a QB either on a rookie contract or significantly below market value. I think I read that 6 of the highest paid QBs aren't in the playoffs this year. That goes to show that having a young QB that plays immediately is the best path to a SB win. Not having that decreases your chances significantly. Not saying it's impossible, but the idea that in today's NFL you can draft someone and let him sit for 3 years and then he'll become effective would be a statistical anomaly (and that's putting it mildly).

Best recipe for success is having ample cap space, drafting a young QB and starting him early, and then using cap space as a weapon to absorb contracts of talented players (like the Rams are doing). Kansas City has also done a little bit of this. 

That's a great point.

If you're into winning championships it changes the definition of "franchise QB" and QBOTF. Years 1-5 of a 1st rd QB's career are your best bet for a championship. After that it drops rapidly when you have to re-sign him for mega bucks.

[champ11]

44 minutes ago, broncos67 said:

In today's NFL, you don't have the luxury of "developing a QB." The vast majority of competitive teams are winning with a QB either on a rookie contract or significantly below market value. I think I read that 6 of the highest paid QBs aren't in the playoffs this year. That goes to show that having a young QB that plays immediately is the best path to a SB win. Not having that decreases your chances significantly. Not saying it's impossible, but the idea that in today's NFL you can draft someone and let him sit for 3 years and then he'll become effective would be a statistical anomaly (and that's putting it mildly).

Best recipe for success is having ample cap space, drafting a young QB and starting him early, and then using cap space as a weapon to absorb contracts of talented players (like the Rams are doing). Kansas City has also done a little bit of this. 

I think the best path is just not overpaying an average QB. You can pay - as long as they are worth the money

Brady should be a top 6 paid QB. Brees and Luck are just outside the top 6. 

I'd agree that the best recipe for success is drafting a good QB immediately, but either way you need a good QB to be successful lol. So if you get one - pay him. 

[BullsandBroncos]

For some reason I think we're going to have a shot at Murray if he ACTUALLY chooses the NFL. Declaring for the draft means nothing to me right now, but I think he could slide to 10 just for being 5'9" 195.

Hopefully we're smart enough to not take him and this is coming from an OU guy.

[paul-mac]

5 hours ago, broncos67 said:

In today's NFL, you don't have the luxury of "developing a QB." The vast majority of competitive teams are winning with a QB either on a rookie contract or significantly below market value. I think I read that 6 of the highest paid QBs aren't in the playoffs this year. That goes to show that having a young QB that plays immediately is the best path to a SB win. Not having that decreases your chances significantly. Not saying it's impossible, but the idea that in today's NFL you can draft someone and let him sit for 3 years and then he'll become effective would be a statistical anomaly (and that's putting it mildly).

Best recipe for success is having ample cap space, drafting a young QB and starting him early, and then using cap space as a weapon to absorb contracts of talented players (like the Rams are doing). Kansas City has also done a little bit of this. 

 

I'm waiting for the team that exploits the market inefficiency and lets the QB walk after the rookie contract and let someone else pay him and repeat the cycle.

 

Someone will do it.

[AKRNA]

2 hours ago, paul-mac said:

 

I'm waiting for the team that exploits the market inefficiency and lets the QB walk after the rookie contract and let someone else pay him and repeat the cycle.

 

Someone will do it.

If your QB picks work out, every fiour or five years you can trade him for a couple of firsts and get the next great rookie QB.

[Broncofan]

2 hours ago, paul-mac said:

 

I'm waiting for the team that exploits the market inefficiency and lets the QB walk after the rookie contract and let someone else pay him and repeat the cycle.

 

Someone will do it.

FWIW, if DAL was smart, they would do this with Dak - play out his 4th year next year, franchise tag him, and see if anyone bites (and if not, just let him walk after tag year #5).   For his great rookie year, it was with the top OL and a young Zeke as RB who didn't get caught from behind when he broke free.    Since then, it's pretty clear he's a complementary piece on the O, but not the central piece.  Amari Cooper has upgraded that O in a huge way, but each time DAL loses a big game vs. a similar or better team, Dak just doesn't elevate his play (unless it's PHI, weird lol).    He's far better than what we have, but to commit top 5-6 QB money, it's a bad investment.   But the fear of having no one, it drives teams to make these kind of plays.   It's defendable if you are 1-player away, but in Dak's case, I think they need a better QB if they are going to get past the WC/Divisional round (and for sure could use a better OC than Scott Linehan, this late run might have hurt DAL more in the long run, Linehan should not have been retained, and likely was out if they missed the playoffs - now there's talk he's staying). 

I don't think you should part ways if you've found a true top 6-8 guy, but I think teams do lock in feeling committed when they shouldn't be for top 12-16 guys - and that creates the mediocrity of being expensive and not that good - what @champ11 was referring to.   BAL was understandable because of the timing, but Joe Flacco is the poster child for this.  

The other way to do it is to be bold - and lock a guy in for 5-6 years - and by the time year 3 is there, it's usually a bargain.   Philip Rivers signed a 6-year, 91M contract - at the time, it seemed so high - but by the time it was year 3, it wasn't even top 8 anymore.    His 4-year extension has done the same thing - 4 years, 91M - seemed expensive at the time, but 22-23M is literally league-average.   He's been playing for 3/4 of the years under contract as a value.   

The risk of that method, of course, is if the play declines.  But they key is the guy really has to be worth it.    Alex Smith at 4/94 at his age and knowing his limits was known to be a problem from Day  - now it's a total disaster - the injury wasn't foreseeable, but honestly even healthy Smith's play was a total loss.    If it was easy though, so many teams wouldn't struggle so hard, I mean, we're exhibit A in that regard. 

[germ-x]

1 hour ago, Broncofan said:

FWIW, if DAL was smart, they would do this with Dak - play out his 4th year next year, franchise tag him, and see if anyone bites (and if not, just let him walk after tag year #5).   For his great rookie year, it was with the top OL and a young Zeke as RB who didn't get caught from behind when he broke free.    Since then, it's pretty clear he's a complementary piece on the O, but not the central piece.  Amari Cooper has upgraded that O in a huge way, but each time DAL loses a big game vs. a similar or better team, Dak just doesn't elevate his play (unless it's PHI, weird lol).    He's far better than what we have, but to commit top 5-6 QB money, it's a bad investment.   But the fear of having no one, it drives teams to make these kind of plays.   It's defendable if you are 1-player away, but in Dak's case, I think they need a better QB if they are going to get past the WC/Divisional round (and for sure could use a better OC than Scott Linehan, this late run might have hurt DAL more in the long run, Linehan should not have been retained, and likely was out if they missed the playoffs - now there's talk he's staying). 

I don't think you should part ways if you've found a true top 6-8 guy, but I think teams do lock in feeling committed when they shouldn't be for top 12-16 guys - and that creates the mediocrity of being expensive and not that good - what @champ11 was referring to.   BAL was understandable because of the timing, but Joe Flacco is the poster child for this.  

The other way to do it is to be bold - and lock a guy in for 5-6 years - and by the time year 3 is there, it's usually a bargain.   Philip Rivers signed a 6-year, 91M contract - at the time, it seemed so high - but by the time it was year 3, it wasn't even top 8 anymore.    His 4-year extension has done the same thing - 4 years, 91M - seemed expensive at the time, but 22-23M is literally league-average.   He's been playing for 3/4 of the years under contract as a value.   

The risk of that method, of course, is if the play declines.  But they key is the guy really has to be worth it.    Alex Smith at 4/94 at his age and knowing his limits was known to be a problem from Day  - now it's a total disaster - the injury wasn't foreseeable, but honestly even healthy Smith's play was a total loss.    If it was easy though, so many teams wouldn't struggle so hard, I mean, we're exhibit A in that regard. 

I get all the points, but it’s almost impossible to let go of a 25 year old average to above QB.  That’s how you get yourself fired.  Finding a QB is probably the most difficult thing to do in all of sports.  When you get a young one that can show flashes of being more than just a game manager it’s almost impossible to let that go.

In the instance of the cowboys, Dak doesn’t deserve the money.  But if you’re a GM or HC letting him walk is pretty much the nail in the coffin....who is Dallas going to find that’s better than Dak?  And even if they do it’s not guaranteed to be successful year 1.  New QB, likely at least tweaks to the current offensive system + the QB needing to get on the same page with the rest of the offense.

It all sounds great in theory, but no team that I can remember has ever sustained success with a revolving door every 4-5 years at the most important position in all of sports.

[broncofan48]

2 minutes ago, germ-x said:

I get all the points, but it’s almost impossible to let go of a 25 year old average to above QB.  That’s how you get yourself fired.  Finding a QB is probably the most difficult thing to do in all of sports.  When you get a young one that can show flashes of being more than just a game manager it’s almost impossible to let that go.

In the instance of the cowboys, Dak doesn’t deserve the money.  But if you’re a GM or HC letting him walk is pretty much the nail in the coffin....who is Dallas going to find that’s better than Dak?  And even if they do it’s not guaranteed to be successful year 1.  New QB, likely at least tweaks to the current offensive system + the QB needing to get on the same page with the rest of the offense.

It all sounds great in theory, but no team that I can remember has ever sustained success with a revolving door every 4-5 years at the most important position in all of sports.

Not too mention if he has success elsewhere and/or you don’t replace him you’ll be public enemy #1

[Broncofan]

19 minutes ago, germ-x said:

I get all the points, but it’s almost impossible to let go of a 25 year old average to above QB.  That’s how you get yourself fired.  Finding a QB is probably the most difficult thing to do in all of sports.  When you get a young one that can show flashes of being more than just a game manager it’s almost impossible to let that go.

In the instance of the cowboys, Dak doesn’t deserve the money.  But if you’re a GM or HC letting him walk is pretty much the nail in the coffin....who is Dallas going to find that’s better than Dak?  And even if they do it’s not guaranteed to be successful year 1.  New QB, likely at least tweaks to the current offensive system + the QB needing to get on the same page with the rest of the offense.

It all sounds great in theory, but no team that I can remember has ever sustained success with a revolving door every 4-5 years at the most important position in all of sports.

FWIW I don’t subscribe to doing this every 4-5 years.   Just see it as worth the risk with Dak and DAL.   I should also say as long as Jerry Jones is the owner / de facto GM this is never happening.  He is a guy who stays a year too long than a year too early (Linehan is a great example of this). 

If a guy’s worth it then I’d take the long view and try the Rivers route by going 6 years and getting year 3-6 to be the bargain years.  So that 8/10 years were below market.  

I’m just pointing out that going extension each time fo guys who aren’t worth it shouldn’t be done out of fear.  I don’t have a problem with teams exercising some caution.   But it’s also clearly swung too far the other way.  Ironically one of the smarter teams in how they found a middle ground - OAK with Carr.  GM McKenzie made the deal basically a series of 1-year deals.   They can walk away anytime now.  Of course the owner rewarded McKenzie by replacing him with Gruden (but to be fair hiring Del Rio and then Norton as DC and letting the D get that bad sealed his fate). 

[germ-x]

4 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

FWIW I don’t subscribe to doing this every 4-5 years.   Just see it as worth the risk with Dak and DAL.   

If a guy’s worth it then I’d take the long view and try the Rivers route by going 6 years and getting year 3-6 to be the bargain years.  So that 8/10 years were below market.  

I’m just pointing out that going extension each time fo guys who aren’t worth it shouldn’t be done out of fear.  I don’t have a problem with teams exercising some caution.   But it’s also clearly swung too far the other way.  Ironically one of the smarter teams in how they found a middle ground - OAK with Carr.  GM McKenzie made the deal basically a series of 1-year deals.   They can walk away anytime now.  Of course the owner rewarded McKenzie by replacing him with Gruden (but to be fair hiring Del Rio and then Norton as DC and letting the D get that bad sealed his fate). 

Oh no, I know you don’t subscribe too it and I get the point.  But if you’re Jason Garrett, who is and has been firmly in the hot seat there’s absolutely no way you’re on board moving on from Dak.  It may be the best long term play to let him walk, but unless Garrett gets a damn firm promise that he gets another 2-3 years there is absolutely no way you get on board with that move.

 

[Broncofan]

3 minutes ago, germ-x said:

Oh no, I know you don’t subscribe too it and I get the point.  But if you’re Jason Garrett, who is and has been firmly in the hot seat there’s absolutely no way you’re on board moving on from Dak.  It may be the best long term play to let him walk, but unless Garrett gets a damn firm promise that he gets another 2-3 years there is absolutely no way you get on board with that move.

 

Re: real life likelihood I posted after but as I said (later) there is zero chance this actually happens as long as Jerry Jones is the de facto GM.  The Cowboys should have already moved on from OC Scott Linehan after last year.   But they are talking about no change.  It’s a team stuck in neutral on O scheme wise.   Amari Cooper gave them a huge boost but the scheme and Dak issues still limit them so much.  But Jerry doesn’t see it he just thinks next year the same crew will suddenly improve. 

[AKRNA]

13 hours ago, germ-x said:

I get all the points, but it’s almost impossible to let go of a 25 year old average to above QB.  That’s how you get yourself fired.  Finding a QB is probably the most difficult thing to do in all of sports.  When you get a young one that can show flashes of being more than just a game manager it’s almost impossible to let that go.

In the instance of the cowboys, Dak doesn’t deserve the money.  But if you’re a GM or HC letting him walk is pretty much the nail in the coffin....who is Dallas going to find that’s better than Dak?  And even if they do it’s not guaranteed to be successful year 1.  New QB, likely at least tweaks to the current offensive system + the QB needing to get on the same page with the rest of the offense.

It all sounds great in theory, but no team that I can remember has ever sustained success with a revolving door every 4-5 years at the most important position in all of sports.

The reason you can't remember it is no team has ever tried it. At least I don't think so.

 

[Royal_VT]

1 hour ago, AKRNA said:

The reason you can't remember it is no team has ever tried it. At least I don't think so.

 

I have done it on Madden before. The key is really just finding a Superstar QB with a 4th round to undrafted ranking.

[germ-x]

6 hours ago, AKRNA said:

The reason you can't remember it is no team has ever tried it. At least I don't think so.

 

Well maybe not the way the cowboys could in terms of letting a young player walk, but plenty of teams have had revolving doors at QB (the current Denver Broncos) and none of them have sustained success.