Jump to content

My Annual Forum by Forum Mock


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, aceinthehouse said:

Passing on a franchise QB @15 if sitting there when there is a huge need is not only stupid, but should probably be a crime.

Here's the secret: if he's still sitting there at 15, odds are he's not actually a true franchise QB. 

That would mean that Arizona, Oakland, New York Giants, Jacksonville, Denver, Cincinnati, and Miami -- all of whom came into this offseason with some degree of need/desire for a new franchise QB -- all had a chance to take him and either chose a different QB over him or chose no QB at all over him. It also means that no team in the back half of the 1st round chose to trade up and make him their future, as was the case with Mahomes and Watson when they slipped out of the top 10

In today's NFL, with all the information and film and extraordinary access available, teams are not missing on elite QBs. They may get it wrong, in terms of drafting a guy as if he's elite and him ending up a bum, but they really don't miss the guys with that potential.

I've done the whole list before, but take the drafts over the last decade or so. Since 2008, there has been exactly 1 truly elite QB that was taken at 15 or later (Russell Wilson). Sure, there are some decent/solid starters taken after pick 15, but that's what you're getting -- decent/solid starter, at best. Aside from Wilson, the best QBs taken outside the top 14 picks over that span are guys like Kirk Cousins, Dak Prescott, Derek Carr, Andy Dalton, Joe Flacco, Colin Kaepernick, Nick Foles, etc. All of whom, to me, are worse than having no QB at all. They're the kind of QB that is too good to easily cut loose, but not nearly good enough to make you competitive in the long term. Aside from one amazing postseason run from Flacco, none of those guys has ever made any noise towards actually contending for a championship.

The bottom line is, if you're a QB and no one thinks highly enough of you to snap you up before you've gotten out of the top 10-12 picks -- you probably don't have that "elite QB" ceiling, for whatever reason. So if Lock is sitting still at #15 when we're picking, it's probably for good reason. And we should probably leave him sitting there. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, Woz said:

Just going to throw this out there for debate: Clelin Ferrell instead of Sweat? If people think that Sweat jumped up due to a great Combine, why not the other option?

I like either guy more than Lock.

I'm not sure why people would think Sweat *just* jumped up due to the combine, given that he had more sacks in the 2017-18 seasons (23.0 sacks)  than Ferrell did (21.0 sacks). And did it against an SEC schedule with a weaker DL group to help protect him from double teams.

Ferrell is a quality player too, I really noticed a big jump in his get-off from the LOS in 2018 as compared to earlier in his career. And he's got a nice well-rounded game, I think he'll likely be stronger against the run than Sweat ever will be. But he's still not the pure pass-rush threat that Sweat is. If we needed to replace Kerrigan, that would be one thing. To me, though, taking Ferrell would be like replacing Preston Smith with...another Preston Smith. The reason we didn't hang on to Preston was because he wasn't the pure pass-rusher we need to complement Kerrigan and provide a consistent threat on passing downs. If we were to draft Ferrell, I think we'd be putting ourselves right back in that same position. Good player, not the best fit.

5 hours ago, Skinsin2013 said:

Metcalf. So the QB we draft NEXT YEAR has a weapon ready and waiting. 

Liked for the theory behind it, even though I don't like the particular player. This is absolutely the right approach. Build the team up and then bring the QB on board. Not the other way around.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Woz said:

Just going to throw this out there for debate: Clelin Ferrell instead of Sweat? If people think that Sweat jumped up due to a great Combine, why not the other option?

I like either guy more than Lock.

I like Ferrell better. Guys just want Sweat due to a fast 40. Other than that, he did not stand out in the SECW. He was good, but Ferrell stood out and was noticed when facing quality competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, PARROTHEAD said:

I like Ferrell better. Guys just want Sweat due to a fast 40. Other than that, he did not stand out in the SECW. He was good, but Ferrell stood out and was noticed when facing quality competition.

I’m not sure Ferrell has the agility and bend to play OLB.  Better fit in 4-3 imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, aceinthehouse said:

Mknight, I hear & understand what your saying.

But Jay himself has said we are in win now mode.

Ace, Jay Gruden is in a "win now" mode. He realizes if he doesn't take Washington to the playoffs at the very least, he's likely to be fired.

The problem is that they're not constructed right now to be a top notch football team consistently.

22 hours ago, aceinthehouse said:

The NFL changes from year to year.

And how do you know, we won't be competing for a SB next year.

We were 6-3 when Alex got injured.

If he doesn't get hurt we probably win the Division or at worst, get a WC.

Maybe we are playing the Patriots instead of the Rams in the SB?

While we don't know for certain, it's unlikely this is true. When they faced upper level talent, they got squashed. Hard.

Washington last year got out to a 6-3 record based on a somewhat weak early schedule.

22 hours ago, aceinthehouse said:

And how do we know that Sweat, Ferrill or any defensive player we take will make any impact at all?

They're just as much of a risk as any QB we might take.

While true, any player is a risk. However, most publicly available talent evaluation sites have Sweat or Ferrell ranked higher than Lock. Yes, Lock plays the single most important position but Washington has no one to threaten the left side of an opponent's offensive line. They need a ROLB desperately. No, I don't believe in Anderson at all. As such, it would be a better move to take a higher ranked player at a slightly lower valued position when both are high need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, e16bball said:

Aside from Wilson, the best QBs taken outside the top 14 picks over that span are guys like Kirk Cousins, Dak Prescott, Derek Carr, Andy Dalton, Joe Flacco, Colin Kaepernick, Nick Foles, etc. All of whom, to me, are worse than having no QB at all. They're the kind of QB that is too good to easily cut loose, but not nearly good enough to make you competitive in the long term. Aside from one amazing postseason run from Flacco, none of those guys has ever made any noise towards actually contending for a championship.

*Foles looks at SB MVP trophy* Huh. :D:D

But I agree with your overall point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/8/2019 at 5:25 PM, e16bball said:

I've done the whole list before, but take the drafts over the last decade or so. Since 2008, there has been exactly 1 truly elite QB that was taken at 15 or later (Russell Wilson). Sure, there are some decent/solid starters taken after pick 15, but that's what you're getting -- decent/solid starter, at best. Aside from Wilson, the best QBs taken outside the top 14 picks over that span are guys like Kirk Cousins, Dak Prescott, Derek Carr, Andy Dalton, Joe Flacco, Colin Kaepernick, Nick Foles, etc. All of whom, to me, are worse than having no QB at all. They're the kind of QB that is too good to easily cut loose, but not nearly good enough to make you competitive in the long term. Aside from one amazing postseason run from Flacco, none of those guys has ever made any noise towards actually contending for a championship.

I got bored and pulled up everyone since 1994 (the beginning of the free agency era).

Outside the top 12(*), you get four elite quarterbacks over that span: Wilson, Aaron Rodgers (2005), Drew Brees (2001), and Tom Brady (1999).

Some of the decent/solid starters from pre-2008: Jason Campbell(2005 1.25, **), Matt Schaub (2004 3.27), Rex Grossman(2003 1.22, ***), David Garrard (2002 4.10), Chad Pennington (2000 1.18, ****), Marc Bulger (2000 6.02), Aaron Brooks (1999 4.36), Matt Hasselbeck (1998 6.34), Jake Plummer (1997 2.12), Kordell Stewart (1995 2.28), Gus Frerotte (1994 7.03, *****)

Honorable mention - the 2005 "Longevity" candidates: Kyle Orton, Matt Cassel, Ryan Fitzpatrick [weren't what you call good, but had long careers]

 

182 quarterbacks taken over that timespan, of which 158 were taken outside of the top 12. I managed to identify 11 as decent. That's a smidge under 7%. Now, as e16 has argued, scouting has become better. There were 132 QBs taken since 2008, of which 109 were taken outside of the top 12. If I include the "question marks" of Jimmy Garoppolo and Teddy Bridgewater to e16's list, we improve to ... 8.26%!

 

 

(*) No QB since 1994 has been drafted 13th-15th.
(**) That's not me putting on burgundy & gold glasses. It's just that sparse.
(***) I told you, it's that sparse.
(****) Was really good, then wrecked his shoulder and became a faint shadow of himself.
(*****) Okay, that might be me putting on burgundy & gold glasses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/8/2019 at 5:25 PM, e16bball said:

Here's the secret: if he's still sitting there at 15, odds are he's not actually a true franchise QB. 

That would mean that Arizona, Oakland, New York Giants, Jacksonville, Denver, Cincinnati, and Miami -- all of whom came into this offseason with some degree of need/desire for a new franchise QB -- all had a chance to take him and either chose a different QB over him or chose no QB at all over him. It also means that no team in the back half of the 1st round chose to trade up and make him their future, as was the case with Mahomes and Watson when they slipped out of the top 10

In today's NFL, with all the information and film and extraordinary access available, teams are not missing on elite QBs. They may get it wrong, in terms of drafting a guy as if he's elite and him ending up a bum, but they really don't miss the guys with that potential.

I've done the whole list before, but take the drafts over the last decade or so. Since 2008, there has been exactly 1 truly elite QB that was taken at 15 or later (Russell Wilson). Sure, there are some decent/solid starters taken after pick 15, but that's what you're getting -- decent/solid starter, at best. Aside from Wilson, the best QBs taken outside the top 14 picks over that span are guys like Kirk Cousins, Dak Prescott, Derek Carr, Andy Dalton, Joe Flacco, Colin Kaepernick, Nick Foles, etc. All of whom, to me, are worse than having no QB at all. They're the kind of QB that is too good to easily cut loose, but not nearly good enough to make you competitive in the long term. Aside from one amazing postseason run from Flacco, none of those guys has ever made any noise towards actually contending for a championship.

The bottom line is, if you're a QB and no one thinks highly enough of you to snap you up before you've gotten out of the top 10-12 picks -- you probably don't have that "elite QB" ceiling, for whatever reason. So if Lock is sitting still at #15 when we're picking, it's probably for good reason. And we should probably leave him sitting there. 

 

This is why I wouldn't mind trading down and waiting for Daniel Jones or Lock in the 2nd round if the option is presented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...