Oh, Josh Allen went at 7, duh. I was thinking he was actually taken at 12.
Eli Manning comes to mind. They traded up from inside the top 8, though, so it might not completely fit your criteria. (It was two 1sts, a 3rd and a 5th to move up four spots, IIRC.)
I guess that is pretty massive.
If we’re going to consider him a hit, that is
Only Tom Brady has more championships in this century.
Plus there is an actual chance he will make the Hall of Fame. We can debate about him being borderline / undeserving, but “shouldn’t be inducted into the Hall of Fame” isn’t an argument you hear very often regarding busts.
On the one hand, I don’t think you get to count the rings and the possible Hall induction as separate things, but I was also definitely kidding.
Ha! When you’re right you’re right. Without those rings, zero chance his name even comes up.
Agreed. Outside of those two Super Bowl runs, Eli’s career performance was pretty ordinary.
IMO, playing in New York also magnifies things (for better, and for worse); if he’d posted the same career in, say, Kansas City or Seattle, I’m not sure that there’s be the same sort of “he should be in the Hall” talk.
It could be smokescreen, but most signs are pointing towards Carolina taking Young. His size (and possible durability issues) seem risky for having made the big trade to get to #1. His cognitive score is off the charts. Maybe he’ll be another Brees (or even a Wilson) and the height won’t be an issue. Maybe.
Agreed. Without the rings, even if his passing numbers were significantly better but he played in, say, San Diego, he would largely be ignored much like Philip Rivers.
Speaking of Rivers, in hindsight, the fact that he dragged the post-Luck Colts to the playoffs might be his most impressive accomplishment.
I dont think there was anyone who didnt have Burrow as the #1 rated QB in the draft (after Tua’s injury). It was obvious to most everyone he was the #1 QB, and he ended up being. Same with Trevor Lawrence. This year, there isnt that kind of guy.
Indeed. Rivers was a damned good quarterback, but he had the misfortune of playing in an era when there were a lot of damned good quarterbacks, several of whom (Brady, Manning, Rodgers, etc.) overshadowed him.
Plus, he never made it to the Super Bowl, went 5-7 in the playoffs, played in a smaller media market for most of his career, and during the latter half of his run with the Chargers, they were, at best, an average team.
That’s not totally true. Several folks believed that Tus should be the top pick. But that wasn’t the point you made, you said a Burrow was a prospect with few if any questions. That’s demonstrably false. He had many of the same doubts that the QBs in this class have.
Lawrence was the cleanest prospect since Luck. We haven’t seen many of those.
Seeing as how it’s too early in the off season to get into a stupid pissing contest over Joe Burrow or my point about there not being a clear cut #1 QB this year, I’ll just wish a happy draft week.
You did not say “a clear cut number 1”. You said:
That sounded to me like saying that Lawrence and Burrow were complete packages without holes in their game, unlike the other flawed guys you listed.
Perhaps you meant something different. Not sure why you are bringing combative energy to this.
Who do you like for my Colts to get at #4? There’s talk that we like Levis.
Recent rumors that Houston is passing on QB and the Cardinals want to trade back but may not be able to. If that’s the case and they grab Anderson and Carter respectively, the Colts might have their pick of Richardson, Levis or Stroud. Assuming of course the Young to Carolina rumors are also true.
Of the 3 I think it’s Richardson, but I like Levis more than Stroud. Yet for the Colts Levis just looks the part. That probably shouldn’t matter, but with Irsay I suspect it does.
Levis is actually the one I want the least. I think I prefer Stroud, then Young.
Maybe bust is too strong a word, the Jets didn’t get much joy out of Geno Smith but he went ot the pro bowl this year.
Most of the speculation is that the best the 49ers could hope for in trading Lance is a mid 2nd round pick that is a fair bit of draft capital so the buying team must expect a reasonable chance he will do OK as a starter but it is a big drop from 3rd overall (or 3 first round picks depending how you look at it)
It is a big drop, which I think was what the thought experiment was getting at. As a strictly value proposition, it probably makes more sense to go with Lance and use your 11th pick on an OT or whatever falls to you than to take the QB that falls (or even move up a little to make sure you get the 4th one).
But the reason quarterbacks go so high in the draft is that the ones who actually hit the top ~5% of their range of outcomes are so important. As long as there’s a chance that Richardson or Levis might pan out to the 99.99th percentile of their projected NFL version–the Mahomes outcome–that’s what teams care about.
With Lance I think there’s an understanding that SF didn’t get a top .1% or top 1% outcome; they would probably know by now. Probably top 10% isn’t likely. He could still be somewhere between maybe 20% and 90% – not a bust, but not the best case scenario they wanted from a #3 pick. If that’s what you think he’s worth, it’s less than a total lottery ticket on Richardson that still has that outsized upside (as long as you think he has it). The worst possible projection isn’t that different from the 25% projection since neither are good enough, but the 75% outcome is insanely different from the best possible one.
How high do you set the bar for success? I would say a successful pick is one where the drafting team are happy enough with their performance to keep them after their rookie contract. In the lower rounds you might be happy to pick someone who can fuill in while you find your quarterback of the future or serve as a back-up but not at the top of the first.
The success rate for top 3 picks is surpringly low, in the last 10 years only Burrow, Murray and Luck got an extention past their initial 5 years (Lawence might be added to that list but I doubt Z. Wilson or Lance will). Winston and Mariota did have their 5th year options taken but were then cut and had to get a backup roll elsewhere. The rams were not satisfied with Goff and fed him to the Lions (
) as part of a package for Stafford but has done Ok for them. No team would want to rely on any of the others (Mayfield, Darnold, Trubisky, Wentz, Bortles) as their starter.
The odds of success go down as you get lower picks picking at around 7 you might get Josh Allan you might get Jake Locker. You might get a Tom Brady in the 6th but the odds on that are tiny.
I might be wrong but I see Richardson as maybe a 5-10% chance of being that franchise back maybe worth a shot in the mid to low the first round but not in the top 4.
Going back to the thought experiment Lance is regarded as being worth a 2nd round pick why give up pick # 11 and more for him.