MasterAwesome

If you're super impressed by those really decisive 5-yard throws, then just keep the same energy if Bryce is dinking and dunking all season long (knock on wood).

Congrats on the inconsistency.

Were you one of those people who didn't want CJ Stroud cause he went to Ohio State? Cause that sounds awfully similar to those "who was the last Ohio State qb that was successful" arguments.

Well I purposely left out UDFAs because we did technically sign an UDFA QB in Plummer lol so I thought the whole argument was specifically about drafting late round QBs.

I just googled "Top 10 back up QBs" and the first article has him at #7, and the next two have him at #1, albeit those two were from last year. I don't think he did anything to hurt his standing from last year to this year, but regardless, that's why I'm giving plenty of cushion to say he's simply "borderline top 10". IMO he's pretty comfortably in the top 10 and I'd be curious if you can present me with a list of 10-12 back-up QBs you think are better than him. And when I say "Top 10", I don't mean back-up QBs who I would want to have...like I'd obviously rather have a rookie Drake Maye or Michael Penix Jr. over a 36-year-old Andy Dalton, but I'm using the criteria of competency to step in right now. Maybe we're looking at it differently though. Of course things are different from last year to this year. Last year he was a rookie in a bad enough situation to at least somewhat plausibly excuse his poor performance; this year I think his leash is a lot shorter and that he has to show that he's the guy or he's out. And to be clear, I don't even think Dalton is a huge threat to Bryce Young this year because I think the team wants to give him this season to once-and-for-all either prove he's our guy or hopefully get us the 1st overall pick next year. I thought most of the board agreed that he should get this season. I'm just saying I think a late-round raw developmental QB sure as hell ain't gonna be the one to challenge Bryce considering I already believe Dalton won't. I've never heard this much chatter devoted to the QB3 position; certainly not for a team in as bad of shape as ours. Yes I understand the appeal of having a drafted developmental QB on the roster but I think the appeal stems from some idealized *absolutely best-case-scenario* of like one dimension in the multiverse where that QB becomes our franchise QB and ignoring the million other dimensions where that QB fizzles out before his career even began. But I know we're just ultimately just gonna circle back to last week's discussion we already had so we don't have to go down this road again.

Fair enough. I had pretty much this exact same discussion a few days ago about taking a chance at a late-round QB and my argument boils down to there being essentially zero examples of late-round (5th-7th) franchise QBs outside of obviously Tom Brady. You're having to go back to like the late 90s/early 00s for fringe franchise guys like Marc Bulger, Matt Hasselbeck, and Ryan Fitzpatrick if I remember correctly (I did the research last week lol). I do understand the argument about shooting your shot though, even if history doesn't bode well for those QBs panning out to anything more than back-ups. We'll maybe see if Sam Howell amounts to anything and some would argue that Brock Purdy is a franchise QB (or trending towards it) - those guys maybe have the closest chance to buck that trend IMO. I'll have to see Milton and Rattler in real action before I'd be willing to add them to that list.

My point is that I just don't see any world where a raw developmental QB like Spencer Rattler or Joe Milton beats out Andy Dalton as the QB2 this year. Andy is like the prototypical vet back-up QB that a team would want to step in if the starter gets injured or benched. I don't think any team in the league would skip over the consistent experienced vet for the exciting but unpredictable raw late-round rookie. No amount of fan sentiment would have changed that IMO. So unless you disagree with the above, then we're talking about long-term prospects with a QB like Milton/Rattler. I would argue that they would be virtually zero threat to Bryce this season, but potentially next season or the season after. In which case it doesn't matter because I don't think the team is tied to Bryce after this season if he ends up sucking, so why would they care about a Milton/Rattler threatening his spot after this year? If Bryce shows he ain't it this year, then I'm willing to bet the team will either outright cut him, or draft his replacement and relegate him to the bench.

This narrative about not wanting to "challenge Bryce" and cause problems might have more credibility if we didn't have a borderline top-10 QB2 on the roster. You guys keep talking about the FO not wanting to invest in a QB3 in order to coddle Bryce but that ain't how the hierarchy works lol QB3s don't threaten QB1s. Dalton is plenty enough threat to Bryce; unless you're brand new to the Huddle then you should know that there were absolutely people rooting for him to enter the game over Bryce last season...and Bryce's leash is even shorter this year.

He was here last year. And I'm not sure why you think it's impossible for a young player to grow (*insert Bryce Young short joke*) even within a single offseason from minicamp -> OTAs -> training camp. Like that's the whole point of the offseason?

Now that's my kind of compliment sandwich.

I don't mind all the typing (I've been passing the time at work), I thought we were having a good productive discussion - if for nothing else, it was for @ForJimmy's entertainment so we could finally teach him a thing or two about football. But no worries, I'm heading out of work anyways and I don't spend my weekends on the Huddle so this is my last reply regardless.

You know who else flashed a lot? Justin Fields, on his way to a 10-28 record as he was shipped off for a 6th round pick. Like I already said, it was an encouraging first preseason game for Milton. I just hear over and over and over from this board about "flashes" this and "flashes" that and it seems like that word is used to connotate exciting/wow plays, which I understand because this is supposed to be entertainment at the end of the day. I also understand the frustration because Bryce gave us neither winning nor excitement last year. I just think the whole "flashes" thing is so overplayed because obviously elite physical traits are going to naturally yield more flashes, and Milton is quick with a big arm. I also think NFL coaches don't care as much about flashes as they do consistency - I think they'd rather have a boring but consistent QB like Brock Purdy or Dak to an extent, over someone who wows you one play and has you pulling your hair out the next.

I think we're millennia away from the point where we are developing and trading late round quarterbacks for assets lol. Unless I'm missing someone, then I think the Patriots did it one time with Matt Cassel? And I think we'd agree that it was less that they "developed" him but that they made him look good in their system and then tricked another team into trading for him, only for him to never live up to what they gave up. Otherwise I'm assuming you're thinking of Garoppolo? He was drafted in the 2nd and later traded for a 2nd. The only other QB I can think of was way back in the day with Drew Bledsoe, but he was drafted 1st overall, played ~10 years, then traded for a 1st. So only Cassel would fit what you're saying about drafting a guy late, developing him, then trading him. 99.9% of the time (my unresearched guesstimate) it goes in the opposite direction where a team drafts a QB and then trades them for a huge loss. Like Mac Jones and Justin Fields going for a 6th round pick each, after costing their drafting team a mid-1st. Trust me I understand the idea conceptually. I just think it's an idea that sounds better on paper than it is in practice. If it was an untested theory, I'd be on board and say yeah sounds good let's try it. But there is a mountain of evidence already to the contrary. I'm not even by any means saying let's never draft QBs in the later rounds, I'm just in favor of following your draft board which is a culmination of months and months of scouting. tl/dr: If a QB you are intrigued by falls in the draft and is available in the 6th round when you're on the clock and his value lines up with your draft board, then hell yeah let's take him. Otherwise just grabbing a developmental QB every year late in the draft hoping one of them pans out just reeks of desperation IMO.

I think it's also kinda an "anyone but Bryce", "grass is always greener" thing. If you are really opposed to the starting QB, you're going to grasp to any other alternative as a replacement and often hyper-inflate that QB's value in the process. That's why we were seeing things like "what if Jack Plummer kills it" or w/e. I thought Milton had a promising first preseason game, but if Bryce made that throw that Milton made for the long touchdown, people would be nitpicking the hell out of it - "pass was thrown to the outside...receiver had to slow down and turn around...ball should've been thrown in stride to the inside...etc.".

But then that goes back to my point about the draft board. No team is going into the NFL draft room with a cheat sheet about NFL positional hit rates and all that kinda hindsight statistical noise. The philosophy of "none of these guys are likely to amount to anything so let's take shots at developing a QB" is such a fan-oriented position that I think NFL organizations (good and bad) would strongly oppose. Teams are looking at each prospect as individuals and drafting based on how much they like a guy and the potential they see in them. You are advocating for teams to essentially ignore their draft board and their scouting to just take shots at QBs they objectively value less until they hit - because otherwise if a team did have whatever QB at the top of their draft boards relative to where they are drafting, then they would simply take that QB. If a team likes a particular guy and doesn't want to risk them getting drafted or having to compete with other teams to sign him as an undrafted FA, then that's exactly what those late round picks are for. Your argument of "oh you can just pick up a similar undrafted guy later" ignores that these drafted players are hand-picked by their teams for a specific reason. I don't think teams are going "well hmm...I guess we're thin at OT. Let's just take a random one in the 7th". Also, back-up QBs (in an ideal world where your starter stays healthy) are among the lowest contributors to the team unless you want to get into arbitrary hard-to-measure metrics like "how much they pushed the starting QB in competition". Even 4th string linebackers playing Special Teams contribute more on the field than back-up QBs. So again, contributions are on a spectrum rather than saying so-and-so players didn't become starters so let's bucket them all in the same category.

Ok well then that would take me back to my original question of how many late round QBs have amounted to anything beyond journeyman back-up QB? If you want to argue that it's a worthwhile investment to keep spending late round picks on developmental QBs then I would expect you to at least give a few examples of franchise QBs taken in the 5th-7th rounds (again, other than Brady). I mean we could maybe eventually say Brock Purdy if he continues to perform admirably, but people in here are adamant that he's a bum who is carried by his supporting cast anyways so I doubt that's the type of QB they are hoping for when they advocate for drafting late-round developmental QBs. Sam Howell I guess is someone whose career is worth keeping an eye on, but it's not a great start so far considering his team shipped him away one year after drafting him for a negligible return. I spent a little bit of time trying to look into it and it looks like we're having to go back to the late 90s/early 2000s for success stories like superstars Marc Bulger, Matt Hasselbeck, and Ryan Fitzgerald - basically fringe starters when they were at their peak. Maybe Hasselbeck could've been considered a franchise QB in his day, but I don't think he'd cut it in the present era.

Sorry, you misunderstand my 2% vs. 10% thing but I can see how I worded that confusingly. I wasn't referencing some researched statistical analysis of hit rate. I was basically just trying to quantify how much a team might like or value a certain prospect, but I probably should've just left out the random percentages and just stuck with the draft board. If the Panthers are on the clock in the 6th round and there's a developmental QB who's 250 on their draft board vs. a linebacker who's 180 (i.e. a fairly sizeable difference), then I wouldn't want them to ignore their more coveted prospect just because maybe they'll get extremely lucky and strike gold on that QB when that has almost never happened historically. If it was more like 250 vs. 245 then yeah sure let's just cross our fingers and take the QB because the opportunity cost is relatively minimal. I'm just speaking theoretically here cause I obviously don't have access to the Panthers' draft board, but I think it's a safe assumption to say that they liked their late round selections significantly more than whatever bottom barrel QBs were available.

Is that to me? I can't tell cause I guess you forgot to quote again lol. I think when it comes to the later rounds, you're drafting for things like potential, depth, and niche positions like Special Teams. You're essentially consulting your draft board as your blueprint. If you're drafting a guy in the 6th who you think has a 10% chance of becoming a meaningful contributor within 3 years vs. a developmental QB who you think has a 2% chance just because "why the hell not" and maybe you'll get extremely lucky, then I think every team is taking the former aside from maybe incredibly stacked rosters who can afford the luxury of likely throwing away late round picks on the miniscule chance that they strike gold on a franchise QB. Certainly not our team with holes everywhere. Now if it's 50/50 and you have two equally rated players on your draft board and one is a QB and your QB room is awful, then yeah I'd agree that it's worth taking a shot on a developmental QB.

Do we really put a meaningful difference between a mid-6th round draft pick vs. undrafted FA? Tom Brady aside, how many 6th round QBs have panned out in the NFL? Maybe some decent back-ups in there, but I doubt Maye feels threatened because the Patriots spent a 6th round pick on a QB lol. That's basically what we did when we drafted Jimmy Clausen as our "guy" with our first pick and then Tony Pike (remember him?) in the 6th round in the same draft...I don't think anyone considered that as a bold praise-worthy move to push Clausen and maybe strike gold. Chances are that some of these late-round QBs are available after roster cuts, in which case we'll ultimately be in a position to grab one without investing a draft pick of our own.

The more I think about it, the more I can kinda rationalize the approach of sitting virtually all the starters in Game 1. The objective of the preseason is about two things IMO: preparing your team for the regular season with real in-game reps, and also properly evaluating your depth. People wanted the former and are getting a heavy dose of the latter. And I think it makes sense to heavily prioritize evaluating your depth in the first game so that you can adjust reps accordingly in the next two games, especially considering there are only three Preaseason games now. Maybe you see someone who flashed in Game 1 and you want to give them more reps or even time with the starters in Game 2 and 3. Maybe you saw someone who was flat out trash and you decide to reallocate their snaps to other bottom-of-the-roster guys to give them a chance instead. All of that is better to sort out in Game 1 then to find yourself in Game 3 still feeling undecided about certain players and wishing you had distributed reps more effectively throughout the preseason. Now that being said, if he truly ends up sitting Bryce (and/or a large number of starters) for the entirety of the preseason, then yeah I'll probably feel differently about it and it won't sit right with me.

Still a decent number of players worth watching tonight. Accounting for all the players sitting out, the notable ones I'm keying in on: Mingo, JT Sanders, Jalen Coker, Trevin Wallace, DJ Johnson, Brady Christensen, Dane Jackson, Jordan Matthews, Mevis/Pineiro, Smith-Marsette, Smith-Wade, Deven Thompkins (would like to see him returning kicks), and I guess Zavala to see if he's improved enough to earn a roster spot.

I really don't understand this argument. Unless you believe all of that, then since when do we give merit to what people *say* and *feel* during the offseason? The same posters you're talking about, are the ones who said Bryce Young would take the league by storm and "super processor" this and "Mini Mahomes" that, and that Miles Sanders was a great signing and dominant feature back, that Icky was a stalwart franchise LT, that Brian Burns would have a dominant career year in the 3-4 with Evero, that we were primed to win the division, etc. We're talking about the super optimistic subset of posters who every year predict big things for this team. Why favor those preseason opinions over the actual product we saw on the field?

People really taking that "Mini Mahomes" draft moniker too literally if we're already putting their stat sheets side-by-side as some kind of slam dunk indictment.

Not just any 8-year vet...but the 8-year vet with probably a Top 2-3 supporting cast (I only struggle to put them ahead of the 49ers). Gibbs/Amon-Ra/LaPorta at RB/WR/TE is as good as any in the league. They have the #1 rated o-line according to PFF. And Ben Johnson is the most sought-after young offensive playcaller in the league. These things matter immensely, whether people acknowledge it or not.

I just am shocked we're going down this road where we're walking back everything we saw with our own two eyes last year and trying to delude ourselves into thinking maybe our receivers, o-line, playcalling, coaching staff, etc. were not so bad and it was all Bryce's fault. Just to clarify, is it really your position that we actually had a talented roster and coaching staff (particularly on the offensive side) that were all held back by Bryce? Or am I misunderstanding? Cause to me, that's a much harder position to defend than what the "Bryce cope" squad is saying, which is that Bryce was surely part of the problem but our team was an absolute shitshow that made it hard to properly apportion how much blame falls on his shoulders. I truly don't understand why that is such an unreasonable position.