Thread: Would You Trade #5 Overall Pick To Bills For #21 and #22?

Mayfield makes big plays but his maturity issues bother me. Rosen seems to shrink in the big moments, a modern-day Craig Morton. I heard great things about Darnold and I agree the tools are there but he's inconsistent. The guy I'd project as most NFL-ready is Rudolph but likely has a lower ceiling.

If we get Cousins and if the Bills give us more than those two picks, then I’d at least consider it. Rather stay at five and pick our QB assuming Cousins goes elsewhere but it’s not up to me

Originally Posted by OrangeHoof

I'm right there with you except one problem. I don't see any of the likely FA QBs worth $20 mil/yr or more and I don't see any of the likely QBs in the first round being a "can't miss" guy worthy of the #5 pick. Plus, there are six such iffy first-round QBs so if you see clear separation in that group, stay at #5 and take that QB if he's still on the board. If you don't see much separation, I think it is good to trade down and get the best of who's left while cashing in on some quality depth. Maybe with the combine and the private workouts, one or two QBs will clearly separate themselves. As for now, I'm not there with any of them.

Here are 2011s rookie QBs:

#1 Cam Newton
#8 Jake Locker
#10 Blaine Gabbert
#12 Christian Ponder
#35 Andy Dalton
#36 Colin Kaepernick
#74 Ryan Mallett
#135 Ricky Stanzi
#152 TJ Yates
#160 Nathan Enderle
#180 Tyrod Taylor
#208 Greg McElroy

Which of them would anyone prefer to Von Miller? Bearing in mind that Cam Newton was never an option, since he was gone even before our #2 overall pick (much less #5.) That's eleven players; here are the top eleven players "available" that year to teams who didn't fixate on one position:

#1 Cam Newton
#2 Von Miller
#3 Marcell Dareus
#4 AJ Green
#5 Patrick Peterson
#6 Julio Jones
#7 Aldon Smith
#8 Jake Locker
#9 Tyron Smith
#10 Blaine Gabbert
#11 JJ Watt

Interesting lessons there. Most obviously, EVERYONE on that list is an All Pro EXCEPT the QBs; of QBs, Cam's the only one to reach even a single Pro Bowl, much less make multiple All Pro teams (Watt's made four, Von, Smith, Jones and Peterson three, Green two, Dareus one and even Aldon Smith had an All Pro season before he went off the rails and into a bottle.)

Conversely, Locker and Gabberts next Pro Bowl (much less All Pro team) will be their first. Both are generally regarded as busts; Locker hasn't even PLAYED since 2014, the year before Tennessee invested a #2 overall pick in another QB (Mariota) and Jax waited just one more year before also investing a #3 overall pick to replace Gabbert with Bortles. Bortles looked iffy too until this year, when Jax spent its first two picks (#4 and #34) on a starting RB and LT, after which Bortles coincidentally posted the best completion percentage, interception total and sack total of his career, plus an AFCCG appearance. It wasn't all him nor even his run support and blindside protection though: The Jags D also also added starters with all THREE 2016 picks: #5 Jalen Ramsey, #36 Myles Jack and #69 Yannick Ngakoue.

There's more to life and the NFL than QBs. Throw a rookie QB—ANY rookie QB—out there before we have the run blocking to relieve psychological pressure and pass blocking to relieve Khalil Macks pressure and you're just spending a #5 overall pick on the next David Carr, Vinny Testaverde, Jake Locker or Blaine Gabbert. If we were talking about the #25 overall pick, maybe, because then we might just be one good QB (or some other position) away from a title run, and wouldn't have elite talent available that late in the 1st round anyway. But at #5, get #5 talent WHEREVER it plays, because you need too much talent too many places to try to fill a dozen holes with half a dozen draft picks.

Teams without stud QB's are barely making it to SB's, let alone winning them. We just fielded, for two years in a row, an all-star defense. We went 9-7 and then got a top five pick.

At the risk of pulling a Cugel, I was listening to a clip yesterday about Cousins being a Bronco. One of the points being made was that great defenses matter, but defenses fall apart faster than offenses with QB's.

And, considering the fact that no defensive teams have won multiple SB's in about two decades (sans arguably the Steelers with Ben) I'm not exactly thrilled to go that route.

The point of signing Cousins isn't just that it feels good for next year - he's young enough that we will get a good run out of him in a few years when the salary cap evens out a bit.

If the team believes Cousins is the guy, that he's a legitimate top flight QB, and that argument can be made, then signing him is easily worth it.

So, if I understand your position, you want to stay at #5 but don't take a QB. Perhaps that can be fixed in free agency but otherwise do you propose staying another year with Siemian, Lynch and Kelly and hope they develop further?

BTW, using 2011 as a guide, it was smarter to draft a QB in the second round than it was the first round. The teams got more production from Dalton and Kaepernick than they did Locker, Goebbert and Ponder.

"Teams without stud QB's are barely making it to SB's, let alone winning them."

(cough) Nick Foles (cough)

Originally Posted by OrangeHoof

"Teams without stud QB's are barely making it to SB's, let alone winning them."

(cough) Nick Foles (cough)

That's a very poor argument. A. Wentz put the in position to win their division. Wentz IS a stud QB. B. Nick foles is potentially a "stud" QB that hasn't been in the right system until now. Even if he isn't a "stud" he played like you would expect a stud QB to play to finish the year, especially come playoff time.

In 2013, Foles was for sure a stud before going to St. Louis to be ruined by Jeff Fischer's terrible offense.

In 2013 he had a 27-2 TD to INT ratio. That's out of this world good. His play for the 10 games he started was nuts that year.


Colin Kaepernick would be a stronger case if you wanted to present that, but it is still one single example that is still very much outweighed by the number of teams with a stud QB winning the big game. (Colin didn't win it)

To further compound on that point. When was the last time a backup QB won a superbowl? Ever???

So this year was an anomaly.

Originally Posted by underrated29

To further compound on that point. When was the last time a backup QB won a superbowl? Ever???

So this year was an anomaly.

Doug Williams - Washington
Jim Plunkett - Raiders
Jeff Hostetler - Giants
Trent Dilfer - Ravens
Kurt Warner - Rams
Tom Brady - Patriots
Nick Foles - Eagles
Roger Staubach - Cowboys

So out of 52 Super Bowls...8 times.

Originally Posted by underrated29

To further compound on that point. When was the last time a backup QB won a superbowl? Ever???

So this year was an anomaly.

Jeff Hostetler, Phil Simms’ backup won SB 25 (20-19 Norwood wide right) over Buffalo. That was 1990 so 28 years ago.

Before that I believe it was the Dolphins undefeated season. Griese (the elder) was out with injury and his backup started that game.

Originally Posted by HORSEPOWER 56

Jeff Hostetler, Phil Simms’ backup won SB 25 (20-19 Norwood wide right) over Buffalo. That was 1990 so 28 years ago.

Before that I believe it was the Dolphins undefeated season. Griese (the elder) was out with injury and his backup started that game.

Brady and Kurt Warner were both backups originally. Though they went on to earn the starting job even after the starter was healthy.

Yep not many, not many at all.

Originally Posted by underrated29

Yep not many, not many at all.

Outside of Brady and Warner (who turned out to in fact BE stud QB's) it hasn't happened in well over a decade outside Foles.

Originally Posted by Freyaka

Brady and Kurt Warner were both backups originally. Though they went on to earn the starting job even after the starter was healthy.

That’s true I totally forgot them. Doug Williams was originally Jay Schroeder’s backup in DC that season, but was actually named the starter for the playoffs and Super Bowl win after Schroeder returned because he played better than Schroeder in relief. I’d forgotten about that too.

Originally Posted by OrangeHoof

So, if I understand your position, you want to stay at #5 but don't take a QB.

No, I want to stay at #5 and take whoever's the BPA, whatever position he plays; if it's a QB, fine, if not, also fine.

Originally Posted by OrangeHoof

Perhaps that can be fixed in free agency but otherwise do you propose staying another year with Siemian, Lynch and Kelly and hope they develop further?

Or that we draft our QBotF next year. Worst case, a rookie #5 overall pick plus what we've already got (i.e. a great D built around an All Pro former #2 overall pick and DRotY) might push us up to a marginally winning season where we'd have to hunt a QB with a middling 1st round pick instead of a high one. If, OTOH, we're utterly hopeless without a new QB we might be an even BETTER position to get one next year AND have more roster talent to develop him and help him succeed.

Originally Posted by OrangeHoof

BTW, using 2011 as a guide, it was smarter to draft a QB in the second round than it was the first round. The teams got more production from Dalton and Kaepernick than they did Locker, Goebbert and Ponder.

It's a few years out of date, but a while back one of the sports blogs did a statistical comparison over multiple seasons and found there's no significant historical difference between QBs drafted at the top or bottom of the first. There's a significant drop from the 1st to 2nd round, and a big drop after that, but the (always long) odds are the fifth QB taken #27 overall will be as good as or better than the second (or even first) QB taken #3 overall.

So everyone with a top ten pick should pursue top ten TALENT, not necessarily a QB. The further you go down the talent pool, the more it makes sense to target an area you need, since the talent (or at least the odds of finding great talent) diminishes rapidly, per the infamous "points" chart.

Originally Posted by OrangeHoof

"Teams without stud QB's are barely making it to SB's, let alone winning them."

(cough) Nick Foles (cough)

That's the problem with that circular argument:

"But Foles IS a stud QB!!eleven!"

"Why...?"

"Because he WON A SB!"

Freyaka cited Plunkett as a "backup who won a SB," but he wasn't: He was a BUST #1 overall Heisman winner, whose irresistible college career and blinding talent doomed him to be drafted by the Patriots in the middle of their 40 unbroken seasons of utter ineptitude. So after five years of shellshock they dumped him on equally awful SF and moved on to Steve Grogan, who made about as much difference as Tony "I was drafted right after Kelly and a dozen picks before Marino" Eason after him. The '9ers gave him two years, then dumped him on Oakland a year before replacing him with a 3rd round pick named Montana. But the combination of the '70s/80s Raiders elite offensive line and restricting Plunkett to just 15 passes in two years (NONE his first season) ultimately healed his body and mind enough he was no longer scared of his own shadow—because he no longer had to be. By no coincidence, he suddenly started looking like a Heisman winning #1 overall pick: At age 32.

Was Heisman winning #1 overall pick Vinny Testaverde better than "bust" QB Steve Young? Tampa sure thought so when they booed that bum out of town for losing so many games they got the #1 overall pick in '87, but they traded Young to a HoF career and soon put up billboards mocking Testaverdes colorblindness before dumping him off to be a journeyman backup his whole career.

This is what happens when bad teams fixate on QBs; most alarmingly, that's a great example of the kind of systematically bad decision-making that made them bad teams in the first place. Fire all the employees, gun down all the customers and burn the company to the ground, then when the top CEO you hire to fix all that CAN'T he's an overhyped bum, so it's on to the next scapegoat. Maybe the best fastest way to find a great QB cheap is to wait for the perennial losers to dump their latest 1st round bust for whatever pittance they can get; they do it almost annually, so you needn't wait long. But you'll still have to give him the supporting cast (both coaches and players) to succeed or nothing will change.

Meanwhile, everyone convinced "no one can win a SB without a great QB" will remain equally convinced that Namath>Unitas>Morton. Oh, and Kenny Stabler and Terry Bradshaw were better than Fran Tarkenton; even though he had all the records, they both beat him AND the Purple People Eaters on SBs, and that's all that matters.

Jim McMahon, Phil Simms and Doug Williams are great QBs, because mediocre QBs only win SBs on the strength of great Ds once a decade, maybe less, but those guys won THREE IN A ROW; just three years later, Simms broke his foot in Week 14, so the great Jeff Hostetler led the Giants to another SB win. Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson were great too: They won two SBs in just three seasons, and it certainly wasn't because great Ds carried them there despite utterly lacking a great QB, because that only happens once every ten or fifteen years. Anyhow, that was waaaay back in 2002, when SBs were broadcast in black and white through soup cans connected by string, and dinosaurs roamed the Earth; everything's different now.