Which QBs to watch

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

 

[Defjamz26]

3 hours ago, richard pallo said:

You’re right.  The Packers have to make a decision on Love’s 5th year option by May 1st right after the draft.  If they invoke it he is guaranteed around 20m for 2024.  That’s a big number.   They might be open to trading him before or during the draft and drafting a quarterback this draft.  I would be surprised if they don’t play him more before the season ends.  I think we definitely have an opportunity here.

The problem is that’s a potentially bad deal for the Colts. You’d have to pay him $20 million and then make a decision on him based off one year of play. Then you’d either have to tag him or pay him top QB money. Very risky IMO.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

1 hour ago, Defjamz26 said:

The problem is that’s a potentially bad deal for the Colts. You’d have to pay him $20 million and then make a decision on him based off one year of play. Then you’d either have to tag him or pay him top QB money. Very risky IMO.

If he is traded before the fifth year option is exercised colts could decline it. Then he would have one year prove it before paying him. 20 million is cheap for a QB though these days and for one year it’s not that bad. That gives them two years to evaluate him.

[richard pallo]

1 hour ago, Defjamz26 said:

The problem is that’s a potentially bad deal for the Colts. You’d have to pay him $20 million and then make a decision on him based off one year of play. Then you’d either have to tag him or pay him top QB money. Very risky IMO.

I think he is less of a risk than drafting a rookie quarterback.  Especially if we don’t draft one of the top three prospects which is highly probable unless we trade multiple picks to move up.  If we trade for him the option is for 2024 assuming the option is picked up.  So technically we have him for two years to make a decision if need be.  After the season if we think he is the guy you sign him to a long term contract.  Nothing wrong with that.  If he doesn’t work out it’s no different with a rookie quarterback not working out.  You are looking for a quarterback again.  But I think there is less risk with Love who has been in the league for three years versus a rookie.  JMO.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

10 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I think he is less of a risk than drafting a rookie quarterback.  Especially if we don’t draft one of the top three prospects which is highly probable unless we trade multiple picks to move up.  If we trade for him the option is for 2024 assuming the option is picked up.  So technically we have him for two years to make a decision if need be.  After the season if we think he is the guy you sign him to a long term contract.  Nothing wrong with that.  If he doesn’t work out it’s no different with a rookie quarterback not working out.  You are looking for a quarterback again.  But I think there is less risk with Love who has been in the league for three years versus a rookie.  JMO.

Plus he has sat behind Rodgers for 3 years. I bet he has learned a ton. To me he wouldn’t be another teams leftovers. He just isn’t needed if Rodgers keeps playing.

[Defjamz26]

 

Seems to be some slight buzz building around him in the draft. The QB school guy did a full breakdown of his K-State game.

[#12.]

Waiting four years to draft a QB and then drafting Max Duggan makes no sense to me.  You're waiting four years for a chance to draft elite talent.  You gotta move up and make it happen.

[MikeCurtis]

2 hours ago, #12. said:

Waiting four years to draft a QB and then drafting Max Duggan makes no sense to me.  You're waiting four years for a chance to draft elite talent.  You gotta move up and make it happen.

 

I agree..... We have to try

 

BUT

 

There may not be an opportunity to trade up to get QB1 or QB2

 

Carolina

Texans

Detroit all need a QB and have better picks to trade than us

 

 

[richard pallo]

18 minutes ago, MikeCurtis said:

 

I agree..... We have to try

 

BUT

 

There may not be an opportunity to trade up to get QB1 or QB2

 

Carolina

Texans

Detroit all need a QB and have better picks to trade than us

 

 

We will probably have to include a very good starting player from the defensive side I  would think.  

[MikeCurtis]

Just now, richard pallo said:

We will probably have to include a very good starting player from the defensive side I  would think.  

I agree

 

But who do you give up?

 

Ryan 

 

It may take QN or Leonard trade to pull it off (Yikes)

[MikeCurtis]

5 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

 

Seems to be some slight buzz building around him in the draft. The QB school guy did a full breakdown of his K-State game.

I think winning the John Unitas Award is a positive OMEN 

 

I would challenge the folks that havent decided to at least watch a few games from TCU this year.   

Its good stuff

 

 

[richard pallo]

13 minutes ago, MikeCurtis said:

I agree

 

But who do you give up?

 

Ryan 

 

It may take QN or Leonard trade to pull it off (Yikes)

I’m thinking Leonard.  Probably to the Bears.

[MikeCurtis]

43 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I’m thinking Leonard.  Probably to the Bears.

May be

 

They let their star LB go

 

Leonard and our round 1 pick

 

I would do it

[richard pallo]

1 hour ago, MikeCurtis said:

May be

 

They let their star LB go

 

Leonard and our round 1 pick

 

I would do it

 I would too.  They get a young all pro starter on defense and probably another starter with our pick.  Great trade for them.

[Defjamz26]

2 hours ago, richard pallo said:

 I would too.  They get a young all pro starter on defense and probably another starter with our pick.  Great trade for them.

Yeah Flus would love to have Leonard. My guess is he’ll likely sign Okereke too. Tbh that would be the best move for their number 3 overall pick if Carolina doesn’t offer then something better. Chicago is in the same position the Lions were in back in 2020. I think they’ll be smarter and not just stay at 3 and pick and pick an Okudah type talent when they have so many needs.

[craigerb]

On 12/7/2022 at 6:13 PM, Defjamz26 said:

Then you’d either have to tag [Love} or pay him top QB money.

Love is not going to get top QB money.

[crazycolt1]

14 hours ago, craigerb said:

Love is not going to get top QB money.

That all depends on what the Packers do with Rogers. If Love gets tagged he will get top QB money. 

[chad72]

15 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

Yeah Flus would love to have Leonard. My guess is he’ll likely sign Okereke too. Tbh that would be the best move for their number 3 overall pick if Carolina doesn’t offer then something better. Chicago is in the same position the Lions were in back in 2020. I think they’ll be smarter and not just stay at 3 and pick and pick an Okudah type talent when they have so many needs.

 

Just not at the price we have paid him though. Otherwise, they wouldn't have parted with Roquan Smith in the first place in a contract year, IMO. We may have to eat a third of the contract if we use him in a trade.

[richard pallo]

13 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Just not at the price we have paid him though. Otherwise, they wouldn't have parted with Roquan Smith in the first place in a contract year, IMO. We may have to eat a third of the contract if we use him in a trade.

Hard to say right now until everyone’s cap situation is known for next year.  Players come and go and the cap goes up.  

[Hark]

While he was on the original list, I haven't seen anyone mention Cam Ward. Curious if he will come out or go back to school?

 

https://www.profootballnetwork.com/cameron-ward-qb-washington-state-nfl-draft-scouting-report-2023/

[crazycolt1]

Ask this question after all the college bowls and the combine are over. You can be sure there will be some changes in opinions.  

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

It’s funny to me we are 4 years removed from Luck retiring and we are still on QB watch. Lol

[Defjamz26]

17 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

It’s funny to me we are 4 years removed from Luck retiring and we are still on QB watch. Lol

Bad roster management by a GM is why. Band-aid QBs are fine when you have young QBs you’ve drafted high to take over. Constantly kicking the can down the road and waiting for the perfect situation is how you get to be 4-8-1.

[Moe]

On 12/5/2022 at 5:47 PM, danlhart87 said:

Richardson using his tools to his advantage 

 

I like Richardson but then again I also liked Malik Willis

[NorthernColt]

I think Duggans being slept on a bit here. 

[crazycolt1]

4 hours ago, NorthernColt said:

I think Duggans being slept on a bit here. 

Maybe but these ratings will change after the college bowls, senior bowl and the combine.  There is always a few that will move up the list.  

[stitches]

 

Yep! I've been having very similar thoughts for a while. I think people have the high floor attributes and skills in modern NFL a bit backwards. Good article by Zach Hicks here. 

 

In today's NFL, high athletic traits and mobility actually raises the FLOOR of young QBs, simply because even though they might not be completely ready with their mental processing and accuracy, their athleticism gives them another option to get out of bad plays. So... they might not be hitting the absolute peak and they might be leaving some plays on the field, but at the same time because of playmaking ability they are still playable. Lamar, Josh Allen, Hurts, etc. Those are all QBs who even though weren't ready to play at the highest level right away, they were still playable and their teams still had a chance to win... even while they were learning on the job. And as they learned, the more cerebral part of the game was catching up with their physical talents and it is pushing them toward excellence and MVP type seasons. 

[chad72]

46 minutes ago, stitches said:

 

Yep! I've been having very similar thoughts for a while. I think people have the high floor attributes and skills in modern NFL a bit backwards. Good article by Zach Hicks here. 

 

In today's NFL, high athletic traits and mobility actually raises the FLOOR of young QBs, simply because even though they might not be completely ready with their mental processing and accuracy, their athleticism gives them another option to get out of bad plays. So... they might not be hitting the absolute peak and they might be leaving some plays on the field, but at the same time because of playmaking ability they are still playable. Lamar, Josh Allen, Hurts, etc. Those are all QBs who even though weren't ready to play at the highest level right away, they were still playable and their teams still had a chance to win... even while they were learning on the job. And as they learned, the more cerebral part of the game was catching up with their physical talents and it is pushing them toward excellence and MVP type seasons. 

 

Yes, excellent article. Vince Young and RG3 would have thrived in the modern NFL, instead of being held back by the old school guys like Jeff Fisher and Mike Shanahan. However, you do need a QB that is willing to put in the hard work to increase his accuracy in the passing game across years and honing on small things constantly. So, work ethic of these QBs coming out of college needs enough of a deep dive to see if outside the right coaching hire, if the player will put in the work by living and breathing football enough to become a leader by example, which is ultimately what the QB position is about. You can live with their inaccuracy for a year but need to see improvement by year 2 and even more by year 3 to at least get to 60-65% consistently (right now, only Baker Mayfield and Russell Wilson amongst starters are below 61% in the league - https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/player-stat/completion-percentage). 

 

Not everyone is going to walk into an offense with McVay, Shanahan or Andy Reid or even Sirianni at the helm but you need the right support for the first 2 years of a rookie QB that will help them blossom by Year 3, IMO. Mahomes won SB in year 3, Burrow went to SB in year 2, Josh Allen went to AFCCG in year 3 etc. and contrary to expectations, Mahomes and Burrow use their legs when necessary to extend plays. This is Year 3 for Jalen Hurts.

[stitches]

38 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Yes, excellent article. Vince Young and RG3 would have thrived in the modern NFL, instead of being held back by the old school guys like Jeff Fisher and Mike Shanahan. However, you do need a QB that is willing to put in the hard work to increase his accuracy in the passing game across years and honing on small things constantly. So, work ethic of these QBs coming out of college needs enough of a deep dive to see if outside the right coaching hire, if the player will put in the work by living and breathing football enough to become a leader by example, which is ultimately what the QB position is about. You can live with their inaccuracy for a year but need to see improvement by year 2 and even more by year 3 to at least get to 60-65% consistently (right now, only Baker Mayfield and Russell Wilson amongst starters are below 61% in the league - https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/player-stat/completion-percentage). 

 

Not everyone is going to walk into an offense with McVay, Shanahan or Andy Reid or even Sirianni at the helm but you need the right support for the first 2 years of a rookie QB that will help them blossom by Year 3, IMO. Mahomes won SB in year 3, Burrow went to SB in year 2, Josh Allen went to AFCCG in year 3 etc. and contrary to expectations, Mahomes and Burrow use their legs when necessary to extend plays. This is Year 3 for Jalen Hurts.

Yep, work ethic and determination in pursuit of improvement is a must, especially when massive improvement is needed in certain areas. This is part of the reason I've been reluctant to give resounding seals of approval to many QBs in the last years. I will say whose tools and skills I like best, but in a lot of cases I don't have the information on the players that will make me more or less confident that they can meet their potential. The GMs and FO people have much better resources and opportunities to research and find out this information, so to a large degree when it comes to QBs I would just defer to the GM as long as I think the QB actually has the physical profile and athletic traits to develop. If they tell me they love his drive to succeed and love his work ethic, I would be much more willing to jump head first into the Anthony Richardson rollercoaster. 

 

So depending on how the meetings with those QBs go, I'd be good with multiple of them. And if whoever is the GM come draft day, loves a QB in the draft... I would stand behind that choice I would root for the success of that pick... 

[chad72]

9 minutes ago, stitches said:

Yep, work ethic and determination in pursuit of improvement is a must, especially when massive improvement is needed in certain areas. This is part of the reason I've been reluctant to give resounding seals of approval to many QBs in the last years. I will say whose tools and skills I like best, but in a lot of cases I don't have the information on the players that will make me more or less confident that they can meet their potential. The GMs and FO people have much better resources and opportunities to research and find out this information, so to a large degree when it comes to QBs I would just defer to the GM as long as I think the QB actually has the physical profile and athletic traits to develop. If they tell me they love his drive to succeed and love his work ethic, I would be much more willing to jump head first into the Anthony Richardson rollercoaster. 

 

So depending on how the meetings with those QBs go, I'd be good with multiple of them. And if whoever is the GM come draft day, loves a QB in the draft... I would stand behind that choice I would root for the success of that pick... 

 

Let us call it now, Colts move back into end of Round 1 ala Lamar Jackson trade, with one of the Bills/Chiefs/Eagles/49ers/Bengals to draft Anthony Richardson, QB, Florida.  They give up a future 2nd outside swapping this first rounder with their current 2nd and a current/future 4th to go from (say) 38/39 to 31/32.

[Defjamz26]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

Yep, work ethic and determination in pursuit of improvement is a must, especially when massive improvement is needed in certain areas. This is part of the reason I've been reluctant to give resounding seals of approval to many QBs in the last years. I will say whose tools and skills I like best, but in a lot of cases I don't have the information on the players that will make me more or less confident that they can meet their potential. The GMs and FO people have much better resources and opportunities to research and find out this information, so to a large degree when it comes to QBs I would just defer to the GM as long as I think the QB actually has the physical profile and athletic traits to develop. If they tell me they love his drive to succeed and love his work ethic, I would be much more willing to jump head first into the Anthony Richardson rollercoaster. 

 

So depending on how the meetings with those QBs go, I'd be good with multiple of them. And if whoever is the GM come draft day, loves a QB in the draft... I would stand behind that choice I would root for the success of that pick... 

That’s why some days I’m okay with taking  Levis. Not only does he have the athleticism, but he’s more developed as a passer than Richardson. And when you compare them side by side, the only thing Richardson may have over Levis is that he’s slightly bigger. They’re probably of similar speed considering they’re both about 230 lbs. We need a mobile QB, so if we’re picking top 5 I’m taking Levis. Maybe even over Stroud who isn’t great under pressure and isn’t creative outside the pocket.

[#12.]

15 hours ago, stitches said:

 

Yep! I've been having very similar thoughts for a while. I think people have the high floor attributes and skills in modern NFL a bit backwards. Good article by Zach Hicks here. 

 

In today's NFL, high athletic traits and mobility actually raises the FLOOR of young QBs, simply because even though they might not be completely ready with their mental processing and accuracy, their athleticism gives them another option to get out of bad plays. So... they might not be hitting the absolute peak and they might be leaving some plays on the field, but at the same time because of playmaking ability they are still playable. Lamar, Josh Allen, Hurts, etc. Those are all QBs who even though weren't ready to play at the highest level right away, they were still playable and their teams still had a chance to win... even while they were learning on the job. And as they learned, the more cerebral part of the game was catching up with their physical talents and it is pushing them toward excellence and MVP type seasons. 

 

Kind of a strange article.  How many classic pocket passers are there in the 2023 draft?

 

Zach Hicks is still thinking in Manning terms in 2023.

 

After waiting 4 years to draft a QB and having the only top 10 pick he might ever have, I see no chance Ballard goes with a two year traits project at QB.  

[#12.]

As for getting up to the 2nd or 3rd pick, Atlanta and Carolina seem to be our competition.  Every other team who might draft a QB is relatively far down.  Would the Bears or Seahawks want to drop to the 20s?

 

It's definitely doable.  Now or never.

[stitches]

49 minutes ago, #12. said:

 

Kind of a strange article.  How many classic pocket passers are there in the 2023 draft?

 

Zach Hicks is still thinking in Manning terms in 2023.

 

After waiting 4 years to draft a QB and having the only top 10 pick he might ever have, I see no chance Ballard goes with a two year traits project at QB.  

Stroud is very close to a classic pocket passer. The very point of traits project QBs is that they are no longer 2-year projects. They play right away. And they are PLAYABLE right away. They are not great yet... but they are playable.

[#12.]

16 minutes ago, stitches said:

Stroud is very close to a classic pocket passer.

 

Not in any kind of a Manning sense.  If that's the definition in 2023, the definition has shifted.

 

In our case, if you were GM, you would draft Richardson and start him in September?  With a top 10 pick you would go that route?

 

I do not see that happening.

 

 

[stitches]

11 minutes ago, #12. said:

 

Not in any kind of a Manning sense.  If that's the definition in 2023, the definition the has shifted.

 

In our case, if you were GM, you would draft Richardson and start him in September?  With a top 10 pick you would go that route?

 

I do not see that happening.

 

 

No idea if it was in this thread but I recently had that same conversation with someone else - Richardson seems really really big reach on paper for top 10... maybe even end of round 1. I felt the same exact way about Josh Allen coming out of college. And if you take a look at their stats in college, they are almost identical. They both had HORRIBLE problems with accuracy and some decisionmaking. They have similar physical and athletic profiles, they both make huge throws, they both overthrow receivers, they both use their mobility as a weapon in the run game. They both were completing like 55% of their passes. BUT just because the outlier that is Josh Allen worked out, doesn't mean you should be hoping to replicate that with another similar QB. With that said - I can absolutely see a team falling in love with Richardson's traits and drafting him top 10. I had Josh Allen as R2-3 QB and I feel similarly about Richardson. I can understand why a team would draft him that high... I would just prefer that it's not my team... unless I was really sure about the intel they are getting about him in regards to his drive to succeed, work ethic, etc. 

[#12.]

6 minutes ago, stitches said:

BUT just because the outlier that is Josh Allen worked out, doesn't mean you should be hoping to replicate that with another similar QB.

 

Right, especially in our position after waiting 4 years to draft a QB.  

 

Someone could do it and it might possibly work, but I can't see the Colts doing it.

[stitches]

5 minutes ago, #12. said:

 

Right, especially in our position after waiting 4 years to draft a QB.  

 

Someone could do it and it might possibly work, but I can't see the Colts doing it.

I hope this is not on their minds. All they should be thinking about is who has the best chance to be a great franchise QB for us, not whether we've been waiting for 4 years to draft or for 10 or for 1. Don't put artificial limitations to yourself. When you are drafting a QB, you are not drafting him for his rookie year. You are hopefully drafting him for the next 10+ years. 

[#12.]

17 minutes ago, stitches said:

I hope this is not on their minds. All they should be thinking about is who has the best chance to be a great franchise QB for us, not whether we've been waiting for 4 years to draft or for 10 or for 1. Don't put artificial limitations to yourself. When you are drafting a QB, you are not drafting him for his rookie year. You are hopefully drafting him for the next 10+ years. 

 

The point being you waited four years to have a shot at a top 5 pick type QB.  You can take a shot on a Richardson type in the 2nd or 3rd round practically every year.  

 

 

[MikeCurtis]

16 hours ago, stitches said:

 

 

So depending on how the meetings with those QBs go, I'd be good with multiple of them. And if whoever is the GM come draft day, loves a QB in the draft... I would stand behind that choice I would root for the success of that pick... 

I am in the same camp

 

There are 6-7 QBs, that if we do our due dilligence on......  I am good to go

 

I just want them to at least TRY to get a rookie QB, vs the castoff QB approach