Sam Darnold [QB, USC]

[Forge]

5 minutes ago, Danger said:

He's been looking better.

We tend to start to nitpick when they are draft eligible and we think they will declare. We want quarterback prospects to be perfect, and they never are. He's got limited experience and has been plagued by some team issues this season, of course there were going to be some growing pains. While yes, some of his flaws are a little more evident, there was nothing that I have seen this year that caused me to back off how I felt about him heading into the season. I think there has been a lot overreaction regarding Darnold this year. 

[Hunter2_1]

1 hour ago, Aztec Hammer said:

You'd think that would be one of the more attractive options for a mega prospect who believed in his ability to succeed no matter what. Turning around the absolute worst team to a champion is the ultimate for legacy. It doesn't get better than that.

If I believed I would be great regardless, I'd rather play for the Browns and be an all-time legend for Cleveland than play for the Pats... imagine that. Fantastic situation and coaching no doubt, maybe you'll even win one or two. But you're never going to be Tom Brady.

I do understand that sometimes an historically bad organisation can severely damage a good prospects career. But I have to admit, I believe the true greats succeed no matter what. I'd be hugely disappointed in Darnold skipping the draft solely because it's the Browns. And not because I'm a Browns fan that loves Darnold. It just doesn't sit well with me, competitively. A true leader wouldn't shirk the toughest of tasks in hopes of a more favourable situation down the line.

Not to mention we will surely pick #1 again next year if we don't get him. There is no escaping us!!!

Yeah, your status would be elevated beyond your ability. The QB who succeeding where (24?) before him failed....etc 

[Mox]

44 minutes ago, Forge said:

We tend to start to nitpick when they are draft eligible and we think they will declare. We want quarterback prospects to be perfect, and they never are. He's got limited experience and has been plagued by some team issues this season, of course there were going to be some growing pains. While yes, some of his flaws are a little more evident, there was nothing that I have seen this year that caused me to back off how I felt about him heading into the season. I think there has been a lot overreaction regarding Darnold this year. 

Unofficial grade for him right now? 2nd round? Mid-1st? Top 5?

[Forge]

7 minutes ago, Bullet Club said:

Unofficial grade for him right now? 2nd round? Mid-1st? Top 5?

To me there's no such thing as a "mid first" when it comes to quarterback. If you're worth the 12th pick in the nfl draft as a quarterback, you're worth the first (for a team that needs to draft a quarterback, that is). The position is way too important to be splitting hairs that fine to me. I have no issue with Darnold being the top pick in the draft if that is the way it plays out. 

[bananabucket]

2 hours ago, Purple-Pride07 said:

RB is a pretty value-less position at the top of the draft despite some prominent players going early on in recent memory. Coming from a PSU fan, even Saquon - in all his 3-down glory - isn't worthy of top selection because running backs aren't as influential as other areas. Position is predicated on other positions, I.e. OL/WR for blocking, QB to alleviate box pressure, etc.

 

Definitely disagree.  An elite RB can completey change your offense.

[One Punch Man]

Should be the 1st pick in whatever draft class he’s a part of.

Dealing with one talented WR, admittedly nice RBs, injury-riddled OL. Underachieving defense. Don’t overthink this one guys.

[CWood21]

1 hour ago, Forge said:

To me there's no such thing as a "mid first" when it comes to quarterback. If you're worth the 12th pick in the nfl draft as a quarterback, you're worth the first (for a team that needs to draft a quarterback, that is). The position is way too important to be splitting hairs that fine to me. I have no issue with Darnold being the top pick in the draft if that is the way it plays out. 

I disagree.  You're essentially making the argument that you're either a top 5 pick, or your not a first round pick at all.  QBs already getting bumped up the board because of the value at the position, but now you're essentially making the argument that those rankings should go out the door.  I mean, I'd go back since I broke into my tier rankings and these are how it breaks down.

(Top 5)
Andrew Luck
RG3

(Top 10)
Jared Goff
Carson Wentz
Jameis Winston
Marcus Mariota
Teddy Bridgewater
Blake Bortles

(Top 20)
Geno Smith

Those are the first round grades I've given since 2012.  So your argument is that because I feel that Geno Smith is a top 20 prospect, I should be willing to take him first overall?  I didn't like the 2013 draft much, but you'd be hard pressed to convince me that he should have gone off the board before Eric Fisher, Star Loutlelei, Sharrif Floyd, DeMarcus Milliner, Alec Ogletree, Luke Joeckel, and Chance Warmack.  All of whom I had clear draft grades significantly higher than Geno Smith.

[Forge]

6 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I disagree.  You're essentially making the argument that you're either a top 5 pick, or your not a first round pick at all.  QBs already getting bumped up the board because of the value at the position, but now you're essentially making the argument that those rankings should go out the door.  I mean, I'd go back since I broke into my tier rankings and these are how it breaks down.

(Top 5)
Andrew Luck
RG3

(Top 10)
Jared Goff
Carson Wentz
Jameis Winston
Marcus Mariota
Teddy Bridgewater
Blake Bortles

(Top 20)
Geno Smith

Those are the first round grades I've given since 2012.  So your argument is that because I feel that Geno Smith is a top 20 prospect, I should be willing to take him first overall?  I didn't like the 2013 draft much, but you'd be hard pressed to convince me that he should have gone off the board before Eric Fisher, Star Loutlelei, Sharrif Floyd, DeMarcus Milliner, Alec Ogletree, Luke Joeckel, and Chance Warmack.  All of whom I had clear draft grades significantly higher than Geno Smith.

I think that if you are a quarterback needy team and you want to draft a quarterback, it's foolish to play with fire because you have an arbitrary top 20 grade on one guy and you are picking 3rd. If that's the guy you want, take him. Now, if you don't want him that bad, or you are perfectly content with the next guy on the board, sure, pass him up. I think that a lot of times, we separate guys to the Nth degree, and I don't know that NFL teams do that as much. 

So I guess my point is situational. YOu have a top 20 grade on on Geno Smith. You're picking third. If you have a top 40 grade on on Manuel, and you don't feel that he's a significantly worse quarterback than Smith, then yes, I think it makes sense to bypass Smith and pick Manuel and take the BPA at the top of round 1. But lets say that you have a tier of 3 quarterbacks, all with that top 20 grade, but after that, there's a huge drop. You're picking third. You're reasonably sure that the three quarterbacks you have with mid first round grades are going to be gone by the time the second round comes through when you pick at the top. The next guy on your list has a top 100 grade (or just say rounds 3-4). You've been starting the likes of Blaine Gabbert and Josh McCown. Yeah, I dont' think that it's super wise to have the arbitrary cut off line at that point in time. Take the quarterback you want and move on. 

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

6 hours ago, jebrick said:

The QB that gets them to 8-8 will have the keys to the city.

You aren't even lying.

We start peacocking when we have a winning preseason record.

[GreenShore]

What's up with the turnovers?

 

I know his O-Line is not helping.

[CWood21]

21 hours ago, Forge said:

I think that if you are a quarterback needy team and you want to draft a quarterback, it's foolish to play with fire because you have an arbitrary top 20 grade on one guy and you are picking 3rd. If that's the guy you want, take him. Now, if you don't want him that bad, or you are perfectly content with the next guy on the board, sure, pass him up. I think that a lot of times, we separate guys to the Nth degree, and I don't know that NFL teams do that as much. 

So I guess my point is situational. YOu have a top 20 grade on on Geno Smith. You're picking third. If you have a top 40 grade on on Manuel, and you don't feel that he's a significantly worse quarterback than Smith, then yes, I think it makes sense to bypass Smith and pick Manuel and take the BPA at the top of round 1. But lets say that you have a tier of 3 quarterbacks, all with that top 20 grade, but after that, there's a huge drop. You're picking third. You're reasonably sure that the three quarterbacks you have with mid first round grades are going to be gone by the time the second round comes through when you pick at the top. The next guy on your list has a top 100 grade (or just say rounds 3-4). You've been starting the likes of Blaine Gabbert and Josh McCown. Yeah, I dont' think that it's super wise to have the arbitrary cut off line at that point in time. Take the quarterback you want and move on. 

It's really not that arbitrary.  If you're looking at a QB prospect who you think could be your franchise QB, but you're not confident that he'll become that player.  And you've got another prospect who you're pretty sure is going to be a perennial All-Pro (potential HoF career) player, and that questionable QB, why would you draft that questionable QB?  We're not talking about the Jared Goff's, Marcus Mariota's, etc. of the world, we're talking about the Paxton Lynch's, Jake Locker, etc. the guys who you like, but have way too many questions to warrant using a top 5 pick on the player.  It's a double-whammy if you select the wrong QB.  Not only are you investing the next 2-3 years into that player, but you're potentially missing out on a franchise-changing talent.  Look at Arizona in 2011, they had a need at QB and they opted not to take one of the horribly flawed QB prospects (Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert, Christian Ponder, etc.) and took the BVA in Patrick Peterson.  I guarantee that if they went your route instead of the one they actually took, they'd be in a significantly worse position than they did now.

If you've got a QB graded out as a top-5 or top-10 prospect, absolutely you should be willing to select them first overall.  But if we're talking about guys who have a top-20 or late 1st round grade, there's no reason to select those players.

[Forge]

Just now, CWood21 said:

It's really not that arbitrary.  If you're looking at a QB prospect who you think could be your franchise QB, but you're not confident that he'll become that player.  And you've got another prospect who you're pretty sure is going to be a perennial All-Pro (potential HoF career) player, and that questionable QB, why would you draft that questionable QB?  We're not talking about the Jared Goff's, Marcus Mariota's, etc. of the world, we're talking about the Paxton Lynch's, Jake Locker, etc. the guys who you like, but have way too many questions to warrant using a top 5 pick on the player.  It's a double-whammy if you select the wrong QB.  Not only are you investing the next 2-3 years into that player, but you're potentially missing out on a franchise-changing talent.  Look at Arizona in 2011, they had a need at QB and they opted not to take one of the horribly flawed QB prospects (Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert, Christian Ponder, etc.) and took the BVA in Patrick Peterson.  I guarantee that if they went your route instead of the one they actually took, they'd be in a significantly worse position than they did now.

If you've got a QB graded out as a top-5 or top-10 prospect, absolutely you should be willing to select them first overall.  But if we're talking about guys who have a top-20 or late 1st round grade, there's no reason to select those players.

I think the difference is, at that point, if I'm not willing to make that pick in the top 5 (which I agree, I wouldn't do if I had other players substantially higher rate. To use arbitrary madden ratings - if I have a quarterback rated at an 83, and I have a guy I can draft who is a 92, I'm taking the latter), then I'm slapping a second round grade on the quarterback and calling it a day. For me, it's just about not getting too fine with regards to the rankings, specifically quarterbacks, if that makes sense. I feel like this can be done if you know where you are picking - if you have a top 5 pick, and aren't willing to take the quarterback at that spot, this is a second round quarterback for you. It's really just semantics. I'm  just trying to keep it uncluttered. I don't see a point in having a mid round grade on a quarterback...and to be clear, we are talking specifically about quarterbacks, not other positions.

[CWood21]

5 minutes ago, Forge said:

I think the difference is, at that point, if I'm not willing to make that pick in the top 5 (which I agree, I wouldn't do if I had other players substantially higher rate. To use arbitrary madden ratings - if I have a quarterback rated at an 83, and I have a guy I can draft who is a 92, I'm taking the latter), then I'm slapping a second round grade on the quarterback and calling it a day. For me, it's just about not getting too fine with regards to the rankings, specifically quarterbacks, if that makes sense. I feel like this can be done if you know where you are picking - if you have a top 5 pick, and aren't willing to take the quarterback at that spot, this is a second round quarterback for you. It's really just semantics. I'm  just trying to keep it uncluttered. I don't see a point in having a mid round grade on a quarterback...and to be clear, we are talking specifically about quarterbacks, not other positions.

So you're essentially eliminating the QB grade that's not a top-10 grade, but above a 2nd round grade.  I don't understand why that would happen only with a QB.  What truly separates those two for you?

[showtime]

Some people are saying Darnold is not ready for the NFL.  That's fine, but there's really no point to return to school.  The problem with college is, he would be going back to school to receive inferior coaching and play against inferior competition.  I don't really understand how that would make him a better player a year from now.  Instead, go to the NFL, if he truly is not ready then he can remain the second string QB for whatever team drafts him while he matures both mentally and physically.

[Forge]

Just now, CWood21 said:

So you're essentially eliminating the QB grade that's not a top-10 grade, but above a 2nd round grade.  I don't understand why that would happen only with a QB.  What truly separates those two for you?

Not a top 10 really...like I said, I don't like to get that fine with quarterbacks specifically. If you know where you are picking, you're either willing to take them there or you are not. Now, you could say something like "I'm not willing to take them at 5, but I will at 18". And that's fine, but there are two problems with that - one, there's no guarantee that you can get to 18 (either up or down), and two, there's always the possibility that someone is willing to take them early, which means if you make that move down, someone may jump you or someone ahead of you will pick. If you're trading up from the top of the second, I don't have an issue with that move because of the fifth year option. So if you slap a second on the guy, then trade up to get him in the first, it's pretty much whatever...it's largely the same grade to me you're just making the move to ensure that you get him and pick up that fifth year option. I don't have an issue with that. 

We know that quarterbacks are a special position - probably the most unique in sports. And teams will reach, and do some really weird things to ensure that they land the guy that they want. It's just a fact of the NFL. I don't like it, but it's part of the game. I look at it objectively and think, "yeah, I would never take this guy in the first round". That's how I felt about Trubisky last year, yet he went #2 overall.  You're either willing to make that move or you're not. It's just about weighing it out, so I don't feel like there is a need to get that specific in their grades. I think you rarely need to reach in that manner with other positions. One, most teams seldom have one very specific team need, so when you're grouping in tiers, if there is not a guy that you like that high at the number one need you have, there's more than likely going to be a guy who can really help out your team and fill another need that is appropriately rated. Two, quarterback grading just seems to be a different monster with regards to how you feel about the prospects. You could have one guy you love and then just hate the rest of them. Since quarterbacking is very specific and unique, I get that. Given the importance of that position, and how they are a bit of a different monster, I get the weird things that is done in the name of obtaining a quarterback.