NFL 2021 offseason thread

[T R U]

17 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

Well - Wentz was traded for pennies on the $.  I would have easily given up what the Colts did - but that didn't happen; Matt Ryan is out there, Sam D'Arnold too.  I'm not saying I want Ryan - but it is certainly an option to consider.  Winston - is a FA - whether he ends up as the Saints QB or not - I'm not ready to jump to that conclusion.  High probability that all of those guys are better than any 3rd or 4th round QB will be.  

If I went those routes though - If there was a QB in that range that I liked - I"d take them too. Point is - take swings and multiple swings at QB.  

Carson Wentz was just flat out awful last year, and barring injury the Eagles are going to get a 1st and 3rd for him. I think that's a pretty fair deal.

[Soxbadger]

1 hour ago, Chisoxfn said:

I don't care about saving the roster - I care about consistently taking steps at improving the QB situation.  Doing nothing is useless and terrible. And it is also completely ignores what Nagy/Pace have been asked to do.  Whether you or I would have asked them to have this chance - they do - and the scenarios / views that this franchise should just ignore QB another year are just that - bad and flawed.  

They took this approach for years and that is part of the reason why they have never found a QB, like ever.  I mean in my entire lifetime as a Bears fan (so I'll say post 1985 - since I was 2 years old at the time) - I can pretty much count QB's whom this team drafted with high picks.  Grossman (after a trade down), McNown, and Trubisky.  I don't even think beyond that they used a 2nd round pick on a QB.  In 35 years - that is 3 1st round qb's (and I don't think they had any 2nd round QB selections either.  That is PUTRID.  

The only other time this franchise made a major investment in a QB - they traded a 1st round pick for a former 1st rounder (Rick Mirer) and obviously the Cutler trade. They also NEVER made any major QB free agent signing, so lets not pretend that they handled this via free agency.  

Bottom Line: You want to know why this team has been bad at QB - well a huge reason is because they have barely invested in the QB position.  Yes - they had some misses there - but the Packers didn't sit around and wait until they needed to get Rodgers (They had Favre) and whether it works for not - they are doing the same with Love and also had recently taken a shot in some other former higher picks/guys (former UCLA QB whose name escapes me who was never any good and Kizer who stunk too).  

Now you are right - beyond just finding a QB - you need to than do your part to give him the weapons, etc.  

The main problem is that because Pace trades away draft picks so often, they dont have the draft capital to make "luxury" picks. They are constantly drafting from behind and having to use their picks on "needs."

Its really bizarre because (imo) the exact opposite strategy, trading down to accumulate more picks, is the better strategy. 

[Chisoxfn]

24 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

The main problem is that because Pace trades away draft picks so often, they dont have the draft capital to make "luxury" picks. They are constantly drafting from behind and having to use their picks on "needs."

Its really bizarre because (imo) the exact opposite strategy, trading down to accumulate more picks, is the better strategy. 

So I see you and others say "luxury" picks - I just don't think a QB is a "luxury" pick.  That is where I differ on everything.  I don't think we have the luxury to ignore the QB spot until we actually have a bonafide front line QB and even when we do - we than need to make sure we have a quality backup and occasionally make reinvestments into the depth of that position, etc.  

Now when Pace trades picks for a mediocre QB like Foles - fine by me (Foles was never better than Mitch and it was clearly a panic move by the front office).  I think the same in terms of the move it made for Anthony Miller and many other uses of cap space.  What I don't ever consider "luxury" moves are giving up assets to get Mitch. He was wrong and that is on him - but trading picks to get a guy you think is going to be the best QB in the class - you should literally do and not look back.  

I'd also note that the mack trade was another example that I thought was a poor use of draft capital and cap space. Never a knock on Mack - just that the combined price was "a luxury" not needed. I got into many debates with most on this board regarding that trade and while I don't think Pace overpaid for Mack - I just don't think it was the right use of capital and cap space.  

[Soxbadger]

9 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

So I see you and others say "luxury" picks - I just don't think a QB is a "luxury" pick.  That is where I differ on everything.  I don't think we have the luxury to ignore the QB spot until we actually have a bonafide front line QB and even when we do - we than need to make sure we have a quality backup and occasionally make reinvestments into the depth of that position, etc.  

Now when Pace trades picks for a mediocre QB like Foles - fine by me (Foles was never better than Mitch and it was clearly a panic move by the front office).  I think the same in terms of the move it made for Anthony Miller and many other uses of cap space.  What I don't ever consider "luxury" moves are giving up assets to get Mitch. He was wrong and that is on him - but trading picks to get a guy you think is going to be the best QB in the class - you should literally do and not look back.  

QB is a luxury pick when you draft Trubisky  at #2 and gave up more picks to move up 1 spot.  If you then draft another QB in the 1st or 2nd round the following years, it basically is an admission you screwed up your first pick. Its impossible to really go back and check, but Id doubt there are many teams who drafted a top 5 QB and then picked another 1st or 2nd round QB in the 3 years after.

(Edit)

The one I can think where a team drafted 1st round qbs close together is Rosen and Kyler Murray but Az was giving up on Rosen.

Wentz and Hurtz is somewhat close but that's 4 years.

 

Edited February 22, 2021 by Soxbadger

[bmags]

Just now, Soxbadger said:

QB is a luxury pick when you draft Trubisky  at #2 and give up more picks to move up 1 spot.  If you then draft another QB in the 1st or 2nd round the following years, it basically is an admission you screwed up your first pick. Its impossible to really go back and check, but Id doubt there are many teams who drafted a top 5 QB and then picked another 1st or 2nd round QB in the 3 years after.

 

 

Josh Rosen -> Kyler Murray

What the jets are about to do.

Wentz ->Hurts 

Possibly Tua being moved on from.

Ultimately I'm not sure what the emotions around luxury picks even means. Mitch was a bad pick. The bears aren't re-signing him. They don't have a QB. Avoiding a QB just because they drafted one 4 years ago and moved on because it is embarrassing is worse process than just going after one.

Look at all of these perfect, young, deep teams that couldn't find the QB when they needed. Jags, Vikes. Who knows with 49ers. Took years to build then crashed down on them after just a few competitive years. 

Getting a QB will never be a luxury if they work out, at the very least in the case of the Patriots or Packers it has led to returned value or recouped value if you still have a QB.

[Soxbadger]

23 minutes ago, bmags said:

Josh Rosen -> Kyler Murray

What the jets are about to do.

Wentz ->Hurts 

Possibly Tua being moved on from.

Ultimately I'm not sure what the emotions around luxury picks even means. Mitch was a bad pick. The bears aren't re-signing him. They don't have a QB. Avoiding a QB just because they drafted one 4 years ago and moved on because it is embarrassing is worse process than just going after one.

Look at all of these perfect, young, deep teams that couldn't find the QB when they needed. Jags, Vikes. Who knows with 49ers. Took years to build then crashed down on them after just a few competitive years. 

Getting a QB will never be a luxury if they work out, at the very least in the case of the Patriots or Packers it has led to returned value or recouped value if you still have a QB.

I already pointed out Murray Rosen, even though that is entirely different as Murray was a higher pick than Rosen, and they were not drafting to Murray to back up, they were drafting him to replace Rosen.

Wentz- Hurts is somewhat comparable, but it was longer time and also it resulted in the Eagles taking the largest dead cap in history.

What does a "luxury" pick mean? It means that when you have a fully assembled roster, you dont have any real needs, and you can pick a player who doesnt necessarily fit a need but may have value over time. 

Lets not be so hasty to say how great the Packers are, Jordan Love by most accounts isnt a starting QB and they wasted a year of Rodgers prime by not getting him another WR.

It would be a lot of work, but Im pretty confident in saying that no team has drafted 21st/2nd round QBs in a 2 year span and won a Super Bowl (you could probably push this out to 3-4 years). The closest I can think of is Montana and Young, but Young wasnt drafted by the 49ers.

If you were even going to come close to something like this being feasible for the Bears, the Bears would need to have traded down from #3 to get extra picks.  It was pretty impossible to draft another QB after Trubisky in 1 or 2, when the Bears traded so much for Mack.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Soxbadger

[bmags]

12 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

I already pointed out Murray Rosen, even though that is entirely different as Murray was a higher pick than Rosen, and they were not drafting to Murray to back up, they were drafting him to replace Rosen.

Wentz- Hurts is somewhat comparable, but it was longer time and also it resulted in the Eagles taking the largest dead cap in history.

What does a "luxury" pick mean? It means that when you have a fully assembled roster, you dont have any real needs, and you can pick a player who doesnt necessarily fit a need but may have value over time. 

Lets not be so hasty to say how great the Packers are, Jordan Love by most accounts isnt a starting QB and they wasted a year of Rodgers prime by not getting him another WR.

It would be a lot of work, but Im pretty confident in saying that no team has drafted a 2 1st/2nd round QBs in a 2 year span and won a Super Bowl (you could probably push this out to 3-4 years). The closest I can think of is Montana and Young, but Young wasnt drafted by the 49ers.

If you were even going to come close to something like this being feasible for the Bears, the Bears would need to have traded down from #3 to get extra picks.  It was pretty impossible to draft another QB after Trubisky in 1 or 2, when the Bears traded so much for Mack.

What did I miss here where people are arguing for bears to draft first round quarterbacks every year. I don't see where chisoxfn said anything more than a QB pick isn't a luxury while the position still isn't settled and even when it is should look for competent depth (on a rookie deal is better than paying so much for backups like the bears have).

But GB/NE had drafted a lot of backup QBs over the years and that's what I was referring to, not just Love and Rodgers, but Hasselback and Aaron Brooks. They also drafted Hundley in the fifty round and went after Kizer shortly after cle unloaded him. That's all a lot more quantity put behind Aaron Rodgers than bears had with trubisky.

edit: originally said hundley was drafted in 2nd round.

[Soxbadger]

1 minute ago, bmags said:

What did I miss here where people are arguing for bears to draft first round quarterbacks every year. I don't see where chisoxfn said anything more than a QB pick isn't a luxury while the position still isn't settled and even when it is should look for competent depth (on a rookie deal is better than paying so much for backups like the bears have).

But GB/NE had drafted a lot of backup QBs over the years and that's what I was referring to, not just Love and Rodgers, but Hasselback and Aaron Brooks. They also drafted Hundley in the second round and went after Kizer shortly after cle unloaded him. That's all a lot more quantity put behind Aaron Rodgers than bears had with trubisky.

He specifically mentions:

  

In 35 years - that is 3 1st round qb's (and I don't think they had any 2nd round QB selections either.  That is PUTRID. 

And also mentions Rodgers/Love, which are both first round picks.

You cant compare the Bears to NE. NE over that time period consistently traded down or out of the first round to accumulate picks. This is the exact strategy that I have been saying the Bears should do. If you trade down and accumulate more picks, then you can do this. The Bears do the exact opposite strategy, its not compatible.

The Packers have 1 hit for the strategy in Rodgers who was a late 1st round pick when Farve was a lot older. They also have arguably wasted a bunch of picks on QBs that could have possibly gotten them another championship.

The Bears under Pace never had excess picks, because he traded them away for his guy. They were always drafting from behind because they almost never had all of their picks. And they also spent picks on guys like Foles. Its just being a horrible GM.

 

[Chisoxfn]

1 hour ago, Soxbadger said:

He specifically mentions:

  

 

And also mentions Rodgers/Love, which are both first round picks.

You cant compare the Bears to NE. NE over that time period consistently traded down or out of the first round to accumulate picks. This is the exact strategy that I have been saying the Bears should do. If you trade down and accumulate more picks, then you can do this. The Bears do the exact opposite strategy, its not compatible.

The Packers have 1 hit for the strategy in Rodgers who was a late 1st round pick when Farve was a lot older. They also have arguably wasted a bunch of picks on QBs that could have possibly gotten them another championship.

The Bears under Pace never had excess picks, because he traded them away for his guy. They were always drafting from behind because they almost never had all of their picks. And they also spent picks on guys like Foles. Its just being a horrible GM.

 

I don't know where I said we should be taking back to back 1st round picks on QB - but quite frankly - if that is what it took - than yes I would support it.  If the Bears drafted Tua and ended up having the #1 pick and were staring at Lawrence and thought Lawrence >>> Tua - than yes - I would be sitting here saying they need to move Tua and pick Lawrence.  

Bottom Line - They need to address QB. This franchise doesn't have one and yet I see you all saying addressing QB is a luxury pick.  They have Nick Foles, who flat out stinks as a full time starter in this league.  Nothing is going to change that. Yes - he can get hot for periods of time - but he is not an upper echelon NFL QB and thus - the Bears are in a position where they have no QB.

So in my mind - their #1 priority should be in finding someone they think can be that franchise QB.  That means whatever move you make for that position - is not a luxury - it is a necessity.  Whether Watson is worth it or not - fine - debate that all day long - but to see people here proposing the Bears solve the QB spot by sticking at status quo and taking some QB in round 3 or 4 - well quite frankly that is crazy talk.  It might work - it might not. 

The Seahawks went after Flynn with a big contract - taking a shot on him - the same year they selected Wilson in the 3rd round.  It wasn't like they just solved their situation looking at Wilson - no - they tackled it two different ways. You could almost argue that would be the equivalent of the Bears giving Mariota or Winston some money and drafting Kyle Trask (or insert whatever other QB).  And let me be clear - that is fine with me - it is doing something.

The scenario I showed was that the Bears have LITERALLY NEVER INVESTED IN THE QB.  I believe i saw a stat somewhere that said the Bears were in the bottom 5 of QBs selected in round 1/2 than any franchise in the NFL since 85.  Now I'm not saying that purely investing in them is going to work either - cause I'm sure the Browns are on the upper echelon of QB's taken - so lets not ignore there isn't more to it than that - but everything is harder when you take fewer chances.  

[Chisoxfn]

48 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

He specifically mentions:

  

 

And also mentions Rodgers/Love, which are both first round picks.

You cant compare the Bears to NE. NE over that time period consistently traded down or out of the first round to accumulate picks. This is the exact strategy that I have been saying the Bears should do. If you trade down and accumulate more picks, then you can do this. The Bears do the exact opposite strategy, its not compatible.

The Packers have 1 hit for the strategy in Rodgers who was a late 1st round pick when Farve was a lot older. They also have arguably wasted a bunch of picks on QBs that could have possibly gotten them another championship.

The Bears under Pace never had excess picks, because he traded them away for his guy. They were always drafting from behind because they almost never had all of their picks. And they also spent picks on guys like Foles. Its just being a horrible GM.

 

I should point out - I too have been a big proponent of trading down.  I don't like to say it is the Patriots way - because the Patriots actual draft record is actually pretty putrid, rather I prefer to call it the Jimmy Johnson way.  But just because the Bears haven't done that - doesn't mean I don't support it. I don't know that I would have drafted Love when I did - but if the Packers thought highly enough of him, than you know what - you do it, knowing at some point you have to replace Rodgers (not to mention Rodgers has had his fair share of injuries during his career).  

My point is - for QB - you trade assets; I probably don't do it for much any other position. I think when it comes to all other positions - when you have similar guys on the board, you move down and accumulate assets knowing the crap shoot that exists so maximize the amount of guys you can get with the higher grades possible. 

[The Beast]

1 hour ago, Chisoxfn said:

I should point out - I too have been a big proponent of trading down.  I don't like to say it is the Patriots way - because the Patriots actual draft record is actually pretty putrid, rather I prefer to call it the Jimmy Johnson way.  But just because the Bears haven't done that - doesn't mean I don't support it. I don't know that I would have drafted Love when I did - but if the Packers thought highly enough of him, than you know what - you do it, knowing at some point you have to replace Rodgers (not to mention Rodgers has had his fair share of injuries during his career).  

My point is - for QB - you trade assets; I probably don't do it for much any other position. I think when it comes to all other positions - when you have similar guys on the board, you move down and accumulate assets knowing the crap shoot that exists so maximize the amount of guys you can get with the higher grades possible. 

What would you say if they signed Winston to be the starter, drafted an offensive lineman and Kyle Trask?

Also, a recap on the Trubisky trade:

https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/49ers/how-49ers-bears-2017-trade-looks-mitchell-trubisky-option-declined

The things that hurt the most were Trubisky, Fred Warner and Alvin Kannada (not picked by the 49ers, obviously).

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.si.com/nfl/bears/.amp/news/two-years-later-bears-love-what-they-get-from-khalil-mack

The verdict is still out on the Mack trade.

[Balta1701]

 

[scs787]

What do we think of Jaime Newman?? I really think with the cap issues and the OL issues, OT in the first then Newman in the second is my ideal situation. 

[knightni]

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

 

Cell - Prison - Criminals - Desperation -

Cowboys it is!

[bigruss]

21 hours ago, Chisoxfn said:

I don't know where I said we should be taking back to back 1st round picks on QB - but quite frankly - if that is what it took - than yes I would support it.  If the Bears drafted Tua and ended up having the #1 pick and were staring at Lawrence and thought Lawrence >>> Tua - than yes - I would be sitting here saying they need to move Tua and pick Lawrence.  

Bottom Line - They need to address QB. This franchise doesn't have one and yet I see you all saying addressing QB is a luxury pick.  They have Nick Foles, who flat out stinks as a full time starter in this league.  Nothing is going to change that. Yes - he can get hot for periods of time - but he is not an upper echelon NFL QB and thus - the Bears are in a position where they have no QB.

So in my mind - their #1 priority should be in finding someone they think can be that franchise QB.  That means whatever move you make for that position - is not a luxury - it is a necessity.  Whether Watson is worth it or not - fine - debate that all day long - but to see people here proposing the Bears solve the QB spot by sticking at status quo and taking some QB in round 3 or 4 - well quite frankly that is crazy talk.  It might work - it might not. 

The Seahawks went after Flynn with a big contract - taking a shot on him - the same year they selected Wilson in the 3rd round.  It wasn't like they just solved their situation looking at Wilson - no - they tackled it two different ways. You could almost argue that would be the equivalent of the Bears giving Mariota or Winston some money and drafting Kyle Trask (or insert whatever other QB).  And let me be clear - that is fine with me - it is doing something.

The scenario I showed was that the Bears have LITERALLY NEVER INVESTED IN THE QB.  I believe i saw a stat somewhere that said the Bears were in the bottom 5 of QBs selected in round 1/2 than any franchise in the NFL since 85.  Now I'm not saying that purely investing in them is going to work either - cause I'm sure the Browns are on the upper echelon of QB's taken - so lets not ignore there isn't more to it than that - but everything is harder when you take fewer chances.  

I thought someone mentioned us taking Mac at 20, which I think is a really big reach, he'd only be taken there because of a need, not because he's a first round grade (in my opinion).  If they truly believe he's the guy, then sure invest in it.  Like the guy out of A&M?  Then fine, draft him in round 4/5, no problem with that.  

But why do we HAVE to trade for a Darnold, who is already worse (stats wise) than what we have?  If we draft or trade, it needs to be a clear upgrade/long term strategy.

[Chisoxfn]

49 minutes ago, bigruss said:

I thought someone mentioned us taking Mac at 20, which I think is a really big reach, he'd only be taken there because of a need, not because he's a first round grade (in my opinion).  If they truly believe he's the guy, then sure invest in it.  Like the guy out of A&M?  Then fine, draft him in round 4/5, no problem with that.  

But why do we HAVE to trade for a Darnold, who is already worse (stats wise) than what we have?  If we draft or trade, it needs to be a clear upgrade/long term strategy.

Odds that Jones is there at 20 are probably less than 10 percent. So you may say it is a reach - but at this point seems like he is pretty entrenched as a likely top 15 / top 10 pick. 

[bmags]

Just now, Chisoxfn said:

Odds that Jones is there at 20 are probably less than 10 percent. So you may say it is a reach - but at this point seems like he is pretty entrenched as a likely top 15 / top 10 pick. 

PFF just put Jones getting picked above Fields, so.

His Senior Bowl seems to have done a lot for him.

[bigruss]

Man I must be missing something, watching him in a few college games did not have me saying "yes, this is the guy".

[Soxbadger]

58 minutes ago, bigruss said:

I thought someone mentioned us taking Mac at 20, which I think is a really big reach, he'd only be taken there because of a need, not because he's a first round grade (in my opinion).  If they truly believe he's the guy, then sure invest in it.  Like the guy out of A&M?  Then fine, draft him in round 4/5, no problem with that.  

But why do we HAVE to trade for a Darnold, who is already worse (stats wise) than what we have?  If we draft or trade, it needs to be a clear upgrade/long term strategy.

 

7 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

Odds that Jones is there at 20 are probably less than 10 percent. So you may say it is a reach - but at this point seems like he is pretty entrenched as a likely top 15 / top 10 pick. 

 

6 minutes ago, bmags said:

PFF just put Jones getting picked above Fields, so.

His Senior Bowl seems to have done a lot for him.

 

Read June Jones write up on Mac Jones, he thinks he is the best QB in the class.

https://sports.yahoo.com/nfl-draft-trevor-lawrence-qb-3-thats-how-one-former-nfl-coach-grades-him-205523234.html

Quote

“Mac’s deep-ball accuracy is probably the best that I have graded in my years of coaching quarterbacks,” Jones said. “He’s almost at 55 percent at over 20 yards, which is unbelievable.

 

June Jones coached Warren Moon, so that is a crazy comment. The article is pretty interesting. 

[Chisoxfn]

12 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

 

 

 

Read June Jones write up on Mac Jones, he thinks he is the best QB in the class.

https://sports.yahoo.com/nfl-draft-trevor-lawrence-qb-3-thats-how-one-former-nfl-coach-grades-him-205523234.html

 

June Jones coached Warren Moon, so that is a crazy comment. The article is pretty interesting. 

Badger - I was about to post this as well. It goes to show you just how different various people evaluate QB's. If you think about it - Mahomes was not #1 on most teams boards - but I think the stories are Andy Reid was like in-love with him and I think I heard another report that said Sean Payton was also highly intrigued and that if Chiefs didn't get Mahomes he was going to Payton and Saints.  

Maybe Mac Jones is that - and June Jones is a pretty innovative guy who obviously knew a thing or two about offense. Whether he is right - who knows and like Russ - I see a guy with a more limited arm and athleticism that makes me question things, but that accuracy and ability to throw guys open is huge. I just don't know how you evaluate that with Jones given the talent he was throwing to at Bama.  

Trask was always a guy I liked in college - until he faded. I thought he climbed the latter and moved the pocket well, showed good accuracy and seemed to throw guys open - but than there was some regression late and now he's dropping like a rock. Clearly I don't know anything.  

In all honesty - I think we don't appreciate just how much it is a guess as well as the impact of coaching, etc.  I also think a huge dynamic is how guys project and how they get better. What is there ceiling vs. what more can they learn to do.  

But Drew Brees and Brady are two of the greatest ever - and I would say neither of them were overly athletic and both of them had very "meh" arms, however, both are highly accurate and their ability to move/manipulate the pocket is legendary.  

[Chisoxfn]

13 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

 

 

 

Read June Jones write up on Mac Jones, he thinks he is the best QB in the class.

https://sports.yahoo.com/nfl-draft-trevor-lawrence-qb-3-thats-how-one-former-nfl-coach-grades-him-205523234.html

 

June Jones coached Warren Moon, so that is a crazy comment. The article is pretty interesting. 

One other point on Jones - I actually agree with him a lot on Lawrence.  It feels like he has been so annoited that people are ignoring his other short-comings. In particular - tall QB's just don't have a great track record in the NFL.  Tend to get long, mechanics break down which leads to inconsistencies, etc.  If you said take a bet - field or Lawrence on who would be the best QB in this draft - I would bet the field on this (part of that is more credit to the depth of top talent in the field...Wilson, Fields, Lance, Jones - all have their own flaws, but I can see many reasons why any of them become the best QB in this crop...just as I could write a couple bullets on why each would bust).  

[Chicago White Sox]

9 hours ago, scs787 said:

What do we think of Jaime Newman?? I really think with the cap issues and the OL issues, OT in the first then Newman in the second is my ideal situation. 

Is Newman really going in the 2nd?

[bmags]

18 hours ago, Chisoxfn said:

One other point on Jones - I actually agree with him a lot on Lawrence.  It feels like he has been so annoited that people are ignoring his other short-comings. In particular - tall QB's just don't have a great track record in the NFL.  Tend to get long, mechanics break down which leads to inconsistencies, etc.  If you said take a bet - field or Lawrence on who would be the best QB in this draft - I would bet the field on this (part of that is more credit to the depth of top talent in the field...Wilson, Fields, Lance, Jones - all have their own flaws, but I can see many reasons why any of them become the best QB in this crop...just as I could write a couple bullets on why each would bust).  

I feel like this could cut the other way though. Look at what happened to Herbert last year, he had been a top QB for so long, didn't blow away his last year, and people started to claim he was more milquetoast. Then he gets to NFL and is throwing deep dimes and looks dynamic.

I'd also point to Watson.

I'd still take Lawrence. He's had incredible pressure on him, every d coordinator is scheming against him, is playing the top programs in the country and he's still great. I think there is a tendency to overthink it (and same with Jones). Jones isn't very mobile or have a lot of arm talent. But discounting him for the talent around him seems like a bit too much, his efficiency was eyepopping. Maybe he's philip rivers or Ryan, maybe he sucks.

[Chisoxfn]

38 minutes ago, bmags said:

I feel like this could cut the other way though. Look at what happened to Herbert last year, he had been a top QB for so long, didn't blow away his last year, and people started to claim he was more milquetoast. Then he gets to NFL and is throwing deep dimes and looks dynamic.

I'd also point to Watson.

I'd still take Lawrence. He's had incredible pressure on him, every d coordinator is scheming against him, is playing the top programs in the country and he's still great. I think there is a tendency to overthink it (and same with Jones). Jones isn't very mobile or have a lot of arm talent. But discounting him for the talent around him seems like a bit too much, his efficiency was eyepopping. Maybe he's philip rivers or Ryan, maybe he sucks.

Very good points.  Can't argue those and I should caveat - I would also take Lawrence over everyone on the board - more stated that I think the rest of the crop has some serious upside too, so pretty deep crop...I also think it is a crop that has some pretty big time bust potential - when you think of the lesser competition a lot of these guys played with (Lance / Wilson), or their inability to read defenses and react as quickly against good defenses (Fields), and overall lack of athleticism (Jones). 

[bmags]

15 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

Very good points.  Can't argue those and I should caveat - I would also take Lawrence over everyone on the board - more stated that I think the rest of the crop has some serious upside too, so pretty deep crop...I also think it is a crop that has some pretty big time bust potential - when you think of the lesser competition a lot of these guys played with (Lance / Wilson), or their inability to read defenses and react as quickly against good defenses (Fields), and overall lack of athleticism (Jones). 

Wilson looks incredible. I’d be somewhat nervous on the “mahomes is best qb now and he does mahomes stuff” but maybe the josh Allen/mahomes and maybe even kyler Murray takeaway is it’s worth it to take the QBs that can do crazy stuff in field.

But then, was Mitch that? And then my brain breaks.