Draft 2 QBs?

[Nickster]

So I've been thinking about this and have kinda talked myself into it for this draft.

 

WASH had RG3 and Cousins and it worked out pretty well for them.  After RG3 went down they had a good QB to take his place.  NE even with Brady at  high level spent some good capital on QBs and were able to turn Garapolo into a good return when it became clear Brady was still going to be around for a while.

 

In this draft there seems to be some guys that will be day 2 picks that might be worth spending a pick on even though we have lots of needs on this team.  There isn't a clear consensus on the order of the top 3 QBs, and I hope somehow we are going to be able to draft one of the top 3 guys, but I think I would consider drafting a Hooker if he falls or a  Bennet type to give the team a couple chances to get the draft right.

 

I am not proposing to be able to rank college QBs with any type of accuracy as to how they translate to the NFL.

 

But assuming we can get Young, Stroud, or Levis, would you consider drafting another guy?  This QB draft seems deep if not top heavy with talent.

 

 

[chad72]

Yes but the caveat is IF you don't believe in Sam Ehlinger and think you can do better.

 

If you want him to be groomed as the backup because he is used to an NFL regimen of strength and training and NFL speed, then the answer is NO, since the 3rd QB is most likely a vet like Brissett.

[Nickster]

2 minutes ago, chad72 said:

Yes but the caveat is IF you don't believe in Sam Ehlinger and think you can do better.

 

If you want him to be groomed as the backup, then the answer is NO, since the 3rd QB is most likely a vet like Brissett.

Surely though Chad they don't believe in Sam.  They didn't play him after being clearly out of the race even with very sub par play from Ryan, and then they went with Foles.  I guess a new regime could think differently about Sam, but if the org believes in the kid at all, they had a weird way of showing it. 

[chad72]

3 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Surely though Chad they don't believe in Sam.  They didn't play them after being clearly out of the race even with very sub par play from Ryan, and then they went with Foles.  I guess a new regime could think differently about Sam, but if the org believes in the kid at all, they had a weird way of showing it. 

 

If you are drafting the 2nd QB for a starter role, the answer is also NO. You have 2 QBs, you have none. You go in with tailoring a system around the QB you like the most, draft him first and then evaluate the 2nd QB as purely a backup type that you don't have to change the offensive system for. If that 2nd backup QB evaluation results in that QB being a better candidate than Sam E, then pull the trigger in Rounds 5 or 6. Plus, understand we are bound to lose a draft pick or two if we trade up, in which case we are less likely to use it on another QB.

[Nickster]

Well yeah I agree.  What I am thinking about is giving yourself two chances at picking a guy that you can live with and be happy about it.  I'd be interested to know why WASH picked both guys.  They either wanted to hedge on RG3 or just thought KC was too good a prospect to pass up at I think it was a 4th rounder. 

[chad72]

Just now, Nickster said:

Well yeah I agree.  What I am thinking about is giving yourself two chances at picking a guy that you can live with and be happy about it.  I'd be interested to know why WASH picked both guys.  They either wanted to hedge on RG3 or just thought KC was too good a prospect to pass up at I think it was a 4th rounder. 

 

The style of QBing that RG3 played probably got them to hedge their bets. It so happened that by year 3, Kirk Cousins was thrust into a starting role due to a combination of injuries and performance too. The Colts played it wise and got Hasselback, a seasoned veteran to play behind Luck, that was the smart thing to do.

[Nickster]

Just now, chad72 said:

 

The style of QBing that RG3 played probably got them to hedge their bets. It so happened that by year 3, Kirk Cousins was thrust into a starting role due to a combination of injuries and performance too. The Colts played it wise and got Hasselback, a seasoned veteran to play behind Luck, that was the smart thing to do.

 

If it's even possible, its seems like teams are valuing QBs even more than 10 years ago.  Since QBs are such a crap shoot and so increasingly critical to success in The League, I wonder if it might be good business for teams to take a couple shots if the opportunity presents itself.  In this draft in particular, it seems like it might be beneficial to take a couple shots. 

[DougDew]

Keep 3 QBs on the roster.  Proper roster management would allow this.  Jettison specialty/novelty players and have players with more versatile skills as football players rather than RAS athletes trained to do specialized football things.

 

Draft Levis/Stround, then draft Duggan/Jaren Hall in the 4th round or later.  

[shasta519]

Sure. I would still prefer a journeyman QB to help mentor and transition to the rookie QB. But if you hire the right OC type HC, then perhaps you don't really need that as much.

 

You never know what could happen. If there is a value to be had on Day 3 at QB, take it. 

[chad72]

Just now, shasta519 said:

Sure. I would still prefer a journeyman QB to help mentor and transition to the rookie QB. But if you hire the right OC type HC, then perhaps you don't really need that as much.

 

You never know what could happen. If there is a value to be had on Day 3 at QB, take it. 

 

Ultimately, it depends on the number of draft picks you have, IMO. If we give up (say a current 2nd) for moving up, then a 2nd QB might have to wait till the new HC gets his chance to evaluate Sam E because as you know, we have plenty of needs across the board and the FA market is littered with journeymen QBs.

[Nickster]

Just now, chad72 said:

 

Ultimately, it depends on the number of draft picks you have, IMO. If we give up (say a current 2nd) for moving up, then a 2nd QB might have to wait till the new HC gets his chance to evaluate Sam E because as you know, we have plenty of needs across the board and the FA market is littered with journeymen QBs.

Yeah if we move up, this probably isn't as possible.  

I really think we should trade at least Gilmore.  With his health last season and level of play I am thinking he would bring a good haul from a contender, and most likely he isn't going to be playing  on this team when we are ready to contend again. 

[chad72]

2 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Yeah if we move up, this probably isn't as possible.  

I really think we should trade at least Gilmore.  With his health last season and level of play I am thinking he would bring a good haul from a contender, and most likely he isn't going to be playing  on this team when we are ready to contend again. 

 

That is the only way to manufacture draft picks, trade pieces like Gilmore and/or Kenny Moore. Easier to get CBs and skill positions from the draft.

[crazycolt1]

11 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

Sure. I would still prefer a journeyman QB to help mentor and transition to the rookie QB. But if you hire the right OC type HC, then perhaps you don't really need that as much.

 

You never know what could happen. If there is a value to be had on Day 3 at QB, take it. 

An OC type HC? I understand your point but I hope the HC passes the offense off to an OC. 

None of the combined HC/OC position.  I want the OC to concentrate on the offense without distractions. 

Just me 

[throwing BBZ]

10 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

An OC type HC? I understand your point but I hope the HC passes the offense off to an OC. 

None of the combined HC/OC position.  I want the OC to concentrate on the offense without distractions. 

Just me 

 

 KC CINC PHIL Rams  are the way to go, with the HC very involved with the offense.  Two heads are better than one.

    So who is doing what you suggest, this "combined HC/OC? 

   

[PRnum1]

1 hour ago, Nickster said:

So I've been thinking about this and have kinda talked myself into it for this draft.

 

WASH had RG3 and Cousins and it worked out pretty well for them.  After RG3 went down they had a good QB to take his place.  NE even with Brady at  high level spent some good capital on QBs and were able to turn Garapolo into a good return when it became clear Brady was still going to be around for a while.

 

In this draft there seems to be some guys that will be day 2 picks that might be worth spending a pick on even though we have lots of needs on this team.  There isn't a clear consensus on the order of the top 3 QBs, and I hope somehow we are going to be able to draft one of the top 3 guys, but I think I would consider drafting a Hooker if he falls or a  Bennet type to give the team a couple chances to get the draft right.

 

I am not proposing to be able to rank college QBs with any type of accuracy as to how they translate to the NFL.

 

But assuming we can get Young, Stroud, or Levis, would you consider drafting another guy?  This QB draft seems deep if not top heavy with talent.

 

 

I think WASH is a good analogy.

 

Take one of the top 3 and then take Stetson Bennett in the 5th.

 

We need to move on from Sam.

[Defjamz26]

Absolutely. Take one top 5 and take another on Day-3. The 2nd QB should be somewhat similar in skill set to the one you draft in the 1st round so there isn’t a need to completely change the offensive game plan if the starter is injured. Think about the Ravens. They had RGIII behind Lamar and then drafted Tyler Huntley. Both QBs who can run.

[Fluke_33]

Depends on when available and draft value.  

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, chad72 said:

 

Ultimately, it depends on the number of draft picks you have, IMO. If we give up (say a current 2nd) for moving up, then a 2nd QB might have to wait till the new HC gets his chance to evaluate Sam E because as you know, we have plenty of needs across the board and the FA market is littered with journeymen QBs.

 

Yeah. It would have to be some type of mid Day 3 pick value that was too good to pass up...because they can likely get a journeyman QB for just a few million in FA. Maybe Ballard trades back at some point to gain a couple more Day 3 picks.

 

I really do think this offseason and next season should really be with the idea that 2024 is when the Colts should be back to contending football. 

 

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

An OC type HC? I understand your point but I hope the HC passes the offense off to an OC. 

None of the combined HC/OC position.  I want the OC to concentrate on the offense without distractions. 

Just me 

 

I just meant an offensive-minded HC who has a track record for helping a QB develop. Ideally, that HC would be a big influence, but he would also put together a staff that would provide the right environment and support system for that QB.

 

Theoretically, that would make a "journeyman vet QB mentor" less necessary.

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 KC CINC PHIL Rams  are the way to go, with the HC very involved with the offense.  Two heads are better than one.

    So who is doing what you suggest, this "combined HC/OC? 

   

 

I think Steichen, Callahan, Kafka would all be good gets. Ben Johnson was actually the one I was hesitant about, but he stayed at DET.

 

But I think we are most likely looking at Raheem Morris.

 

 

[DougDew]

This is actually a pretty deep QB draft.   Hooker, Hall, Duggan, McKee, Rattler might all be starting QB material.   Others like Aiden ODonnell might surprise.  In a deep draft where we need QBs, it would be foolish not to draft 2, IMO.

[coltsblue1844]

6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

This is actually a pretty deep QB draft.   Hooker, Hall, Duggan, McKee, Rattler might all be starting QB material.   Others like Aiden ODonnell might surprise.  In a deep draft where we need QBs, it would be foolish not to draft 2, IMO.

I wonder where McKee will be drafted?  I'm warming up to the idea of taking best player available at 4 and if that's not a QB, making sure we get McKee, also

[chad72]

16 minutes ago, DougDew said:

This is actually a pretty deep QB draft.   Hooker, Hall, Duggan, McKee, Rattler might all be starting QB material.   Others like Aiden ODonnell might surprise.  In a deep draft where we need QBs, it would be foolish not to draft 2, IMO.

2024 Draft class is deeper and better with Michael Penix Jr. and Bo Nix going back to school, those are just a few Day 2/3 names. I still think we get a 2nd QB in 2024 to add to what we get in 2023.

[DougDew]

10 minutes ago, coltsblue1844 said:

I wonder where McKee will be drafted?  I'm warming up to the idea of taking best player available at 4 and if that's not a QB, making sure we get McKee, also

I've seen him anywhere from late 1st to the 5th.  There is the "statue" thing that is overblown, IMO.  6'6" and good size is hard to bring down.

[DougDew]

6 minutes ago, chad72 said:

2024 Draft class is deeper and better with Michael Penix Jr. and Bo Nix going back to school, those are just a few Day 2/3 names. I still think we get a 2nd QB in 2024 to add to what we get in 2023.

If we would consider small QBs, Spencer Rattler looks impressive.  I didn't like him when he was at OK, but he had a good year.

 

NVM.  Just saw that Rattler is returning to SC for 2023.

[chad72]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

If we would consider small QBs, Spencer Rattler looks impressive.  I didn't like him when he was at OK, but he had a good year.

 

NVM.  Just saw that Rattler is returning to SC for 2023.

 

All those QBs going back makes 2024 deep, that is what I was referring to. It gives Sam E an evaluation period with the new HC and add a vet along with our primary starter. If the HC decides we need to go in a different direction, we should have another set of Day 2/3 picks to play with in 2024. Get that OL straightened out for the rookie first in 2023. 

[Myles]

It just depends on the situation.  If they draft a QB with their first pick and he and Sam are the only QB's on the roster, then yes, draft another.  If Ryan is still on the roster, then no, do not draft another.  If they have signed a different vet, then there may be no need to draft a 2nd QB.  

There is going to be some interesting QB's who become available.    Zach Wilson, Garropollo, Trey Lance and others may be available for minimal trades. 

[Fluke_33]

56 minutes ago, DougDew said:

This is actually a pretty deep QB draft.   Hooker, Hall, Duggan, McKee, Rattler might all be starting QB material.   Others like Aiden ODonnell might surprise.  In a deep draft where we need QBs, it would be foolish not to draft 2, IMO.

Which ones will be starters is the issue.  Every draft has several guys we think will be starters and it always ends up being only one or two.  
if you think you know which one it will be you have to take them early.  You should not take the risk on missing out. 

[DougDew]

29 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:

Which ones will be starters is the issue.  Every draft has several guys we think will be starters and it always ends up being only one or two.  
if you think you know which one it will be you have to take them early.  You should not take the risk on missing out. 

Nobody ever knows what rookie is going to start, at any positions.  The higher risk QBs determined by analysis should be drafted lower, or taken as BPA later.  In round 4 or later, its a dart throw.

 

If Tanner McKee is there, you can't teach 6'6" with arm talent and brains.

[Fluke_33]

8 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Nobody ever knows what rookie is going to start, at any positions.  The higher risk QBs determined by analysis should be drafted lower, or taken as BPA later.  In round 4 or later, its a dart throw.

 

If Tanner McKee is there, you can't teach 6'6" with arm talent and brains.

That's agreed.  The later the QB is selected the less chance they have of starting, generally.  I don't like the idea of trading back and hoping a guy is still there.  if i think he will start and he is at 4 or we need to trade up to 1 to get him then i would do it.  

I wouldn't be mad if they took hooker or richardson at 4 overall.  if they think that guy is the man then get him. 

[coltsblue1844]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

I've seen him anywhere from late 1st to the 5th.  There is the "statue" thing that is overblown, IMO.  6'6" and good size is hard to bring down.

and he seems to have "enough" mobility to get away if need be, from what I've seen

[BProland85]

In a PFN mock I did recently I nabbed QBs Cameron Ward and Dorian Thompson-Robinson later in the draft. I also traded down so much from the 4th overall pick that I landed 6 extra 2024 1sts. I then selected very good prospects in rounds 2 and 3 with WR Kayshon Boutte, DE Felix Anudike, and RT Darnell Wright. 
 

As GM I basically liked the opportunity to be able to acquire multiple top 10 picks in 2024 to have a great chance at landing either Caleb Williams or Drake Maye if Ward or Thompson-Robinson don’t look promising. 

[Scott Pennock]

4 hours ago, Nickster said:

So I've been thinking about this and have kinda talked myself into it for this draft.

 

WASH had RG3 and Cousins and it worked out pretty well for them.  After RG3 went down they had a good QB to take his place.  NE even with Brady at  high level spent some good capital on QBs and were able to turn Garapolo into a good return when it became clear Brady was still going to be around for a while.

 

In this draft there seems to be some guys that will be day 2 picks that might be worth spending a pick on even though we have lots of needs on this team.  There isn't a clear consensus on the order of the top 3 QBs, and I hope somehow we are going to be able to draft one of the top 3 guys, but I think I would consider drafting a Hooker if he falls or a  Bennet type to give the team a couple chances to get the draft right.

 

I am not proposing to be able to rank college QBs with any type of accuracy as to how they translate to the NFL.

 

But assuming we can get Young, Stroud, or Levis, would you consider drafting another guy?  This QB draft seems deep if not top heavy with talent.

 

 

Be careful I was heavily criticized for mentioning that this is the year to try it with the Hendon Hooker injury! Draft whomever in the first and then draft Hooker in the 3rd or 4th round and redshirt him. 

[Nickster]

Just now, Scott Pennock said:

Be careful I was heavily criticized for mentioning that this is the year to try it with the Hendon Hooker injury! Draft whomever in the first and then draft Hooker in the 3rd or 4th round and redshirt him. 

Scott I get it.  The Internet bullies here dislike opinions that are different than theirs.  I just don't care lol.  

 

The main reason I would consider a move like this is because I just think it increases drastically the chances that you hit and also if the guy gets a start or two and looks decent, you can move him for at least break even capital. Garrppolo was drafted 62 and netted a 42nd pick.  

 

I'll be interested to see what Lance brings back if he's out of the SF picture and Love in GB goes in a different direction.

Lance likely won't return the capital spent if he's moved and probably neither would Love. 

[chad72]

1 minute ago, Nickster said:

Scott I get it.  The Internet bullies here dislike opinions that are different than theirs.  I just don't care lol.  

 

Sometimes, strong disagreements aren't the same as bullying. Styles are different. So, if folks are thin skinned, things are always viewed differently. If you take every strong disagreement personally as a grown adult and want to never be criticized for an opinion, chances are you shouldn't be posting on an internet forum, right??

 

If folks can stick to the topic without getting personal and explain their reasoning, that is always appreciated, instead of one liners. Just my point of view.  

[MikeCurtis]

My answer is WHY NOT?

 

Currently, we dont really have a long term QB1 and QB2 on this roster......

 

 

Jake Haener and Max Duggan will probably both be available in round 5

 

After we draft one of the top 3 QBs, follow up with another

 

In 2012 the Redskins drafted RG3 in round one and Kirk Cousins in round 4

 

Cousins has been unspectacular, but a solid pro

 

We are almost in the same situation as the Redskins in 2014

 

And.... because QBs that hit in round 1 (Pro bowl or even playoffs) are 25% or less

 

Why not play the QB lottery TWICE 

[Nickster]

36 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Sometimes, strong disagreements aren't the same as bullying. Styles are different. So, if folks are thin skinned, things are always viewed differently. If you take every strong disagreement personally as a grown adult and want to never be criticized for an opinion, chances are you shouldn't be posting on an internet forum, right??

 

If folks can stick to the topic without getting personal and explain their reasoning, that is always appreciated, instead of one liners. Just my point of view.  

Yeah man I get it.  But there is a flocking phenomenon that deserves criticism IMO.  

 

I guess it could be ignored, but then it just tends to dominate the posts.  It drives everything unless there is some pushback IMO.

 

I do appreciate the guys that I can disagree with and simply present different sides of a simple football idea.  

 

[Solid84]

No. 
 

Only way I see us doing that is if we don’t land one of the top 3 QBs. Then we might go McKee +1 or Hooker +1. I very much doubt that happens though. 

[Nickster]

Just now, MikeCurtis said:

My answer is WHY NOT?

 

Currently, we dont really have a long term QB1 and QB2 on this roster......

 

 

Jake Haener and Max Duggan will probably both be available in round 5

 

After we draft one of the top 3 QBs, follow up with another

 

In 2012 the Redskins drafted RG3 in round one and Kirk Cousins in round 4

 

Cousins has been unspectacular, but a solid pro

 

We are almost in the same situation as the Redskins in 2014

 

And.... because QBs that hit in round 1 (Pro bowl or even playoffs) are 25% or less

 

Why not play the QB lottery TWICE 

Most teams don't do it very often, and I've been thinking about this draft and can't understand why.  That's the way I look at it.  If you buy two tickets you have twice as likely a chance to win. 

We are needy in  a lot of places, but man if we take a chance and miss on QB this time. I think it will be hard to recover from it.  For a decent time period.  You have to be patient on the one hand with a young QB, but on the other hand, if you don't move on some times you get in a rut. 

[Nickster]

I'm kind of surprised by the results of the poll TBH. 

 

IT's right now 15 yeas, 15 nays, and 10 Maybes.

 

I thought there would be more nays.