The official mock draft thread.

The real problem with drafting “franchise” QBs with a high pick is really about NFL status quo and mentality moreso than the actual risk:reward yield of the pick.

It is definitely worth spending high picks on quarterbacks because of the obviously insanely disproportionate payoff if the QB hits.

The issue is that teams are stubborn and keep these guys too long, too long of a leash, because if the QB busts then the coach, GM etc often get fired, so they continue stringing along the fans that their guy will improve, get new OC, get different personnel, and then 3-4 years are burned when usually it’s very obvious after 2 years (max) that this was a bad pick.

Teams should take chances on QBs with high picks, but they should continue to look at, sign, and draft other QBs as well, rather than dedicating a multi-year building process to an unproven guy who more likely than not will bust.
 
The real problem with drafting “franchise” QBs with a high pick is really about NFL status quo and mentality moreso than the actual risk:reward yield of the pick.

It is definitely worth spending high picks on quarterbacks because of the obviously insanely disproportionate payoff if the QB hits.

The issue is that teams are stubborn and keep these guys too long, too long of a leash, because if the QB busts then the coach, GM etc often get fired, so they continue stringing along the fans that their guy will improve, get new OC, get different personnel, and then 3-4 years are burned when usually it’s very obvious after 2 years (max) that this was a bad pick.

Teams should take chances on QBs with high picks, but they should continue to look at, sign, and draft other QBs as well, rather than dedicating a multi-year building process to an unproven guy who more likely than not will bust.


Go look at the history of QBs who weren't among the first 7 QBs taken in their draft. If you do, I think you're going to have a major shift in your thinking. You can make the cut even earlier than that, but 7 makes it so obvious as to be impossible to miss.
 
Last edited:


My pleasure. I looked into the cutoff years ago. You just don't find championship level QBs after a certain spot. It's a shame, too, because having some Rudys would make looking at lower round QBs more interesting for me.

Some will hang their hat on a Nick Foles or Kirk Cousins, and some will say something like "But Brock Purdy", but that's the best going this far down in the draft is going to get you.
 
I present to you, the answer to most of our problems

View attachment 4900

i know its a little silly, but if we don't go with one of the top 3 QBs at #3, then I'd very seriously consider double dipping like this to bring in 2 prospects that can compete for the starting job in 2025.. loser becomes a backup or traded
 
i know its a little silly, but if we don't go with one of the top 3 QBs at #3, then I'd very seriously consider double dipping like this to bring in 2 prospects that can compete for the starting job in 2025.. loser becomes a backup or traded


It's never made sense to me that teams don't do it regardless of how high they take the first QB. If you like 2 QBs, take them both. So, for example, draft Maye and Penix, and let them fight it out for the next 4-5 years. I get that you might not consider your established QB looking over his shoulder at another starter level QB to be a wise use of resources , but draftees aren't established.

I mean, granted that it didn't work out with a Lombardi for the Redskins, but drafting both RGIII and Kirk Cousins was obviously the smart play in that draft, so why should teams not do that with a higher pick when they need the QB?
 
It's never made sense to me that teams don't do it regardless of how high they take the first QB. If you like 2 QBs, take them both. So, for example, draft Maye and Penix, and let them fight it out for the next 4-5 years. I get that you might not consider your established QB looking over his shoulder at another starter level QB to be a wise use of resources , but draftees aren't established.

I mean, granted that it didn't work out with a Lombardi for the Redskins, but drafting both RGIII and Kirk Cousins was obviously the smart play in that draft, so why should teams not do that with a higher pick when they need the QB?

yea i mean BB has said it, you can never have enough good QBs

the competition would be intense and bring out their best, wouldn't rattle any cages because both are unestablished rookies and neither would be leading the team year 1 anyways

ideally its a really close competition, and you have a high quality backup that you can trade away at some point or use as leverage in negotiations with the QB1
 
Getting close! According to BB tomorrow the "rumors" will have a little more meat to them. I've heard some smart draft-prop bettors liking Drake Maye to go #2, thinking Washington has liked him the whole time and wouldn't be surprised if they took him.
 
Back
Top