Quote:
Originally Posted by QuikSand
After a lengthy back-and-forth with friends offline about the ATL Penix pick, I think I have come around to a new place on it.
The central question is really just about the QB position in the modern NFL. It's obviously important, pretty clearly the most important single position anywhere in major professional sports, and arguably dictates team success in an overwhelming fashion overall. Buying into this logic further and further toward the extreme side can send you into directions that start to seem irrational. (We've seen this debate in miniature in the last decade or two as merely good-enough starters sometimes get market-setting contracts, and more recently as we rethink what the QB market properly looks like as a % of the overall team salary cap...and maybe that needle hasn't even come to rest quite yet, looking at you Mr. Mahomes)
So, IFF you buy that "QB = nearly everything" then much of the logic that would sensibly apply to any another position just might go out the window. Continue to heckle the Raiders for targeting the standout TE after just acquiring a top TE last year, as an imperfect but current example - that's fine, TE isn't what determines the whole story. But, if QB is indeed basically what drives NFL success, then you basically take you shot any time you believe there's a solid chance of landing a top QB, period. Meaning that yes, even if you have made a financial commitment to a current veteran starter for the 2-3 years ahead, you still go ahead and draft a new guy if your scouting convinces you he may well be the real deal. If he is the real deal, even if it takes 2-3 years to see that and you will have missed out on getting value from him as a young/cheap starter, you could either walk into a high level still-young starter late in his rookie contract (a la Jordan Love) or you could perhaps parlay that promising young guy into a Browns-for-Watson overpayment from a QB-starved franchise elsewhere and reap back more draft capital than you expended initially.
I don't think I buy this overall, but... I think it's at least a coherent way to get yourself to "Falcons drafting Penix there was okay, or even smart." It's because QB is just so off-the-charts different that the normal logic and rules just can't apply to the process of acquiring a possible star there.
|
I'm not going to be surprised if at some point the NFL and the player's union equate QB as a special position that is almost separate from other players in regards to the cap. It is the most crucial position for success. The average to good quarterbacks keep you competitive; the best can get you a championship.
Truth is the draft is a crapshoot, all players are variables. Some may be better but there are so many extra factors to success and just because your draft is a success (what is that 2 starters maybe, 1 superstar, or several role players).
I think when critics are evaluating a draft on whether it is successful it's looking at output which is impossible until seasons later; rather they are evaluting on whether the draft strategy made sense.
The Eagles had a weak secondary; they drafted two highly regarded CBs. They also grabbed 7 other players and nabbed 3 draft picks for next year. The strategy makes sense therefore they are graded high. But they graded high last year and Jalen Carter wore down and Nolan Smith barely saw the field. So for output, not a great 2023 draft but the strategy made sense.
To me, the critics are confusing output (perceived or otherwise) grading rather than did the drafting strategy make sense (the Raiders drafting Bowers when they have a good TE; could've traded down and gotten more picks or the Falcons drafting Penix when they got Cousins).
This QB critque was prevalent when the Eagles drafted Hurts when they had Wentz. There was much criticism in Philly but present day, no complaints.