Which QB should the Rams draft in the 1st Round next year?

[DzRams]

I struggle with putting too much stock into those odds because they are skewed by organizational incompetence. Incompetence in the selections made and/or not having the necessary infrastructure to actually develop a QB.

For example let's take the 10 QBs selected in the 16 - 32 range over the past 15 years.

4 of the 10 QBs were selected by the Browns & Broncos alone. And each player had no business even sniffing the 1st round for one reason or another (Tim Tebow, Brandon Weeden, Paxton Lynch, & Johnny Manziel). Add Kenny Pickett, a one year wonder with very small hands and average tools drafted by a defensive minded head coach who gave him an inexperienced OC and that's already half the group.

I just can't get myself to believe that this organization is that incompetent and as long as McVay stays won't have the infrastructure to develop a QB.

I'm also not locked into the team having to select a so-called elite type QB.

There's enough studies to prove that "organizational incompetence" is just really the crapshoot nature of the draft because even the widely accepted best organizations miss a lot.

That said, it does seem that the McSnead tandem has batted a little over the average. So, I can halfway buy the organizational incompetence argument.

I'm much more skeptical on your we-can-win-without-an-elite-QB stance. McVay already shipped off Goff because he wasn't good enough and he was a top 10-12 QB.

I call this the Brock Purdy position. A great coach, scheme, and star talent throughout can almost get you a SB. The 9ers would have several SB wins over the last six years if they had an elite QB.

On the flip side, the Chiefs wouldn't be the most winning team over the last 9 years if not for Mahomes.

 

[WestCoastRam]

The other problem is too much emphasis on tools (arm and legs) rather than the mental aspect. You mentioned QBs who can't read a defense and lack intelligence. I didn't run the numbers on this but my general sense was that the players who had the mental aspect coming out of college - could read a defense, go through progressions, adjust protections, manipulate defenders, etc. - had much greater success even when they lacked some in the arm or mobility department. (I'm not entirely sure QBs develop a whole lot in this mental area when it was wholly lacking in college, but I'm open to being shown to be wrong.)

I'd just add that athleticism (legs) does allow for QB's coming out to have a different timeline to figure out some of the mental and physical aspects of playing from the pocket that makes the truly elite elite though it may ultimately not matter if they can't grasp those things eventually. (Think Carson Wentz is a great example of this).

 

[Memphis Ram]

There's enough studies to prove that "organizational incompetence" is just really the crapshoot nature of the draft because even the widely accepted best organizations miss a lot.

That said, it does seem that the McSnead tandem has batted a little over the average. So, I can halfway buy the organizational incompetence argument.

I'm much more skeptical on your we-can-win-without-an-elite-QB stance. McVay already shipped off Goff because he wasn't good enough and he was a top 10-12 QB.

I call this the Brock Purdy position. A great coach, scheme, and star talent throughout can almost get you a SB. The 9ers would have several SB wins over the last six years if they had an elite QB.

On the flip side, the Chiefs wouldn't be the most winning team over the last 9 years if not for Mahomes.

No. Both things can be true at the same time. Yes, there really is a crapshoot nature of the draft. No doubt about it. However, there is ALSO organizational incompetence, too. And, IMO, some of the crapshoot comments are a cover for the incompetence. Besides, organizations are not static. There's a difference in the McSnead Rams vs. the Devaney or Zygmunt Rams.

Also, many teams have won Championships without so-called elite QBs. And elite QBs like Warren Moon, Jim Kelly, Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Pre-Rams Matthew Stafford, etc have not.

BTW, as far as Shanahan's teams, I'd argue that in-game coaching decisions made during the playoffs/Championship games also played a decent role in his lack of SB titles, too. (And probably injury for one chance when Reddick got Purdy).

Mahomes & Brady. The unicorns of the bunch I think have won 7 of the last 10 Super Bowls. If you can guarantee the Rams would wind up with their own unicorn, then so be it. But I don't like the chances.

 

[Merlin]

I'm much more skeptical on your we-can-win-without-an-elite-QB stance. McVay already shipped off Goff because he wasn't good enough and he was a top 10-12 QB.

Yes and I think so long as the Rams have McVay they're going to require a QB who is up to snuff in his eyes at the position.

The Eagles are the outlier in that they won two Super Bowls with subpar QBs who benefitted from elite OLs and defenses. But they're an org whose GM runs the show. Whereas the Rams are an org where the Coach runs the show.

McVay simply has too high of standards to end up making a run with a subpar QB. And I think the way the teams are built under him, with OL almost being an afterthought and his scheme being used to minimize OL weaknesses is fundamentally different from the Eagles. And I'm fine with that because he's that great as a head coach, though it would be nice if Les could influence him to build a dominant OL by investing more draft capital.

 

[gogoat1]

You can win a SB here and there without a top QB if you have the O line and defense.
BUT, I want many, many Super Bowls and that requires the QB to be smarter than average.
Just the way it is.
No one ever called Montana and Brady stupid. Aikman might not have been as smart as those two but he was till smarter than most.
Now Bradshaw was not the sharpest tool in the shed. But he had Hall of Famers everywhere he looked on his side.
In this day of age offenses are more complex than the old days anyway. Just figuring out McVay's play calling language would drive most people nuts.

 

[Merlin]

Bradshaw was clutch as hell, hate to admit it but it's the truth. Difference in that terrible Super Bowl with the Rams was the QB position. We had the team to win it but Steelers had the QB who hit the big throws.

 

[PhillyRam]

Disagree that he was past his prime. I think Stafford hit his late. Stafford on the Rams > Stafford on the Lions

Stafford fell into very bad habits in Detroit. He played hero ball too often, which was my concern about the trade at the time. And that showed up in his first year in those first 10 or 12 games. He had to learn that he didn't have to score on every drive.

He learned to manage a game better. Avoid throwing 30 yard go routes on 3rd & 3. Don't force the ball when it's not there. He has gotten better each year in that regard and this year he has been at his best in that category, not withstanding the mistakes that he made yesterday.

 

[DzRams]

No. Both things can be true at the same time. Yes, there really is a crapshoot nature of the draft. No doubt about it. However, there is ALSO organizational incompetence, too. And, IMO, some of the crapshoot comments are a cover for the incompetence. Besides, organizations are not static. There's a difference in the McSnead Rams vs. the Devaney or Zygmunt Rams.

Also, many teams have won Championships without so-called elite QBs. And elite QBs like Warren Moon, Jim Kelly, Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Pre-Rams Matthew Stafford, etc have not.

BTW, as far as Shanahan's teams, I'd argue that in-game coaching decisions made during the playoffs/Championship games also played a decent role in his lack of SB titles, too. (And probably injury for one chance when Reddick got Purdy).

Mahomes & Brady. The unicorns of the bunch I think have won 7 of the last 10 Super Bowls. If you can guarantee the Rams would wind up with their own unicorn, then so be it. But I don't like the chances.

Can you win without an elite QB? Sure. But it's not ideal. Further, teams that are perennial SB contenders typically have an elite QB.

The goal is to be a strong contender every year.

Its not necessary to have a Brady or Mahomes unicorn. The Rams are proof of this. They upgraded from near elite in Goff to elite in Stafford and immediately won.

You can argue all you want about Shanahan's team and his coaching mistakes, but if they had a better QB, even a Stafford, they would have won by now despite coaching errors. Elite players, and especially elite QBs, can overcome a lot of subpar coaching.

I don't like their chances of being a perennial contender without an elite QB. Set your sights higher than a Purdy type.

 

[Memphis Ram]

Can you win without an elite QB? Sure. But it's not ideal. Further, teams that are perennial SB contenders typically have an elite QB.

The goal is to be a strong contender every year.

Its not necessary to have a Brady or Mahomes unicorn. The Rams are proof of this. They upgraded from near elite in Goff to elite in Stafford and immediately won.

You can argue all you want about Shanahan's team and his coaching mistakes, but if they had a better QB, even a Stafford, they would have won by now despite coaching errors. Elite players, and especially elite QBs, can overcome a lot of subpar coaching.

I don't like their chances of being a perennial contender without an elite QB. Set your sights higher than a Purdy type.

But, barring injuries, haven't the 49ers been strong contenders just about every year? And that's with Purdy and Garoppolo. They've even got 9 wins so far this year with a Purdy/Jones combination.

BTW, the Rams could have won a Super Bowl with Goff. Yes. Goff could have made some plays vs. the Pats. But, McVay could have also had a counter to the DLine adjustment Belichick had for that wide zone rushing attack. (A healthy Gurley could have helped, too.)

And timing also plays a role in whomever ultimately wins a title. Yes. Stafford played great. But, being matched up vs. the Bengals and their weak OLine against the Rams pass rush was a MAJOR MATCHUP ADVANTAGE for the team. And they still barely won with both.

Poor offensive staff / infrastructure? Gotta have that elite guy to have a chance.
But that's not the Rams.

 

[DzRams]

But, barring injuries, haven't the 49ers been strong contenders just about every year? And that's with Purdy and Garoppolo. They've even got 9 wins so far this year with a Purdy/Jones combination.

BTW, the Rams could have won a Super Bowl with Goff. Yes. Goff could have made some plays vs. the Pats. But, McVay could have also had a counter to the DLine adjustment Belichick had for that wide zone rushing attack. (A healthy Gurley could have helped, too.)

And timing also plays a role in whomever ultimately wins a title. Yes. Stafford played great. But, being matched up vs. the Bengals and their weak OLine against the Rams pass rush was a MAJOR MATCHUP ADVANTAGE for the team. And they still barely won with both.

Poor offensive staff / infrastructure? Gotta have that elite guy to have a chance.
But that's not the Rams.

I have to credit Shanahan because hes doing a phenomenal coaching job, the 9ers are doing much better than expected. But I still expect them to fade over the years now that they've had to pay Purdy and won't be able to maintain a super team around him.

I'd say they're exceptions but the general rule is still that perennial contenders typically have above average/elite QBs.

You're leaning into my point on Goff nearly winning. Elite players can overcome the coach not having counters.

Yes, having a great team building infrastructure and great coaching staff can make a team very competitive without the elite guy. The margin of winning is already super thin. Having an elite QB gives some breathing room there. Why settle for less than elite?

The Rams answer to that question is why we have Stafford, not Goff. I don't expect them to change that thinking.

 

[Memento]

My vote is for LaNorris Sellers. I don't think we get Mendoza or Simpson, but Sellers, we'll likely have a chance at.

 

[XXXIVwin]

Zero, zip, nada chance they move on from Burrow

I agree it's EXTREMELY unlikely, even in 2027.

Only way there's even a remote possibility is if... Burrow desperately wants out, and is willing to risk his reputation by threatening a holdout unless he's traded.

Not saying this will happen, just wondering if this scenario might make it a remote possibility.

 

[Allen2McVay]

...

Only way there's even a remote possibility is if... Burrow desperately wants out, and is willing to risk his reputation by threatening a holdout unless he's traded.

...

That is exactly what has happened several times in the past when a top-tier-QB has had little team success for an extended period of time. It also makes sense for the team.

One more non-playoff season in 2026, would be four straight for Burrow and the Bengals.

 

[Memphis Ram]

I have to credit Shanahan because hes doing a phenomenal coaching job, the 9ers are doing much better than expected. But I still expect them to fade over the years now that they've had to pay Purdy and won't be able to maintain a super team around him.

I'd say they're exceptions but the general rule is still that perennial contenders typically have above average/elite QBs.

You're leaning into my point on Goff nearly winning. Elite players can overcome the coach not having counters.

Yes, having a great team building infrastructure and great coaching staff can make a team very competitive without the elite guy. The margin of winning is already super thin. Having an elite QB gives some breathing room there. Why settle for less than elite?

The Rams answer to that question is why we have Stafford, not Goff. I don't expect them to change that thinking.

With all the injuries the 49ers don't even have a super team around him now. But, OK let's call that an exception.

But, doesn't this McSnead situation here look like it can be one of those exceptions, too?

This isn't a defensive minded head coaching situation where the OC is changed every 2 to 3 years. The McSnead situation isn't one that misses on the majority of it's draft classes by poor talent evaluation or taking huge character or injury risks. Or vastly overpays aging talent for what they've done in the past. Or one that holds on to talent very often that can no longer contribute at the level they should. That's what a lot of the other organizations do. McVay is said to be one of the top offensive minds in the entire league.

But, anyway, why settle for less than elite? Because actual elite QBs are rare and not found in most draft classes. Being the highest rated QB or QBs in a particular draft class simply does not make them elite.

 

[PhillyRam]

That is exactly what has happened several times in the past when a top-tier-QB has had little team success for an extended period of time. It also makes sense for the team.

One more non-playoff season in 2026, would be four straight for Burrow and the Bengals.

He would be a bigger risk than Stafford. Despite being younger than what Stafford was 5 yrs ago, he has obviously been a bit fragile to say the least. Now, was that all due to playing behind a poor OL, or is he just an injury prone player? It's scary to hand out a $50M a yr contracts, and giving up a ton of draft capital, to obtain guys who can't stay on the field.

 

[jrry32]

He would be a bigger risk than Stafford. Despite being younger than what Stafford was 5 yrs ago, he has obviously been a bit fragile to say the least. Now, was that all due to playing behind a poor OL, or is he just an injury prone player? It's scary to hand out a $50M a yr contracts, and giving up a ton of draft capital, to obtain guys who can't stay on the field.

I'd take that risk in a second if Cincy is stupid enough to trade him.

 

[XXXIVwin]

That is exactly what has happened several times in the past when a top-tier-QB has had little team success for an extended period of time. It also makes sense for the team.

One more non-playoff season in 2026, would be four straight for Burrow and the Bengals.

Here's hoping McVay and Burrow end up "accidentally" vacationing at the same spot.

"Hey, imagine what we could accomplish together...."

 

[DzRams]

With all the injuries the 49ers don't even have a super team around him now. But, OK let's call that an exception.

But, doesn't this McSnead situation here look like it can be one of those exceptions, too?

This isn't a defensive minded head coaching situation where the OC is changed every 2 to 3 years. The McSnead situation isn't one that misses on the majority of it's draft classes by poor talent evaluation or taking huge character or injury risks. Or vastly overpays aging talent for what they've done in the past. Or one that holds on to talent very often that can no longer contribute at the level they should. That's what a lot of the other organizations do. McVay is said to be one of the top offensive minds in the entire league.

But, anyway, why settle for less than elite? Because actual elite QBs are rare and not found in most draft classes. Being the highest rated QB or QBs in a particular draft class simply does not make them elite.

You make good points. I agree that there are some teams with the infrastructure in place to contend yearly with a non-elite QB. I'd say the Rams, the Eagles, and the 9ers could all do that.

I don't believe the Rams are an organization content to stay at the level that gets you. Why? Here's the words of the HC in January 2020.

"Here's the fucking deal. We can sit here and exist, and be OK winning 9-11 games, and losing in the fucking divisional round every year, and feel like everything is OK. Or, we could let our motherfucking nuts hang, go trade for this QB, and give ourselves a chance to win a SB every year. You ready to fucking do this or what?"

McVay conclusively answered this question. And Snead, Demoff, and Kroenke agreed with him. Does that sound like a HC or an organization that's content to compete the best they can with subpar QBs and let the chips fall where they may? Nope, not a chance.

Elite QBs are hard to find? Of course. So do the work, position yourself, and make it happen even if it's costly. That's literally what the Rams did for Goff and Stafford.

It's not the Rams way to settle.

 

[Memphis Ram]

You make good points. I agree that there are some teams with the infrastructure in place to contend yearly with a non-elite QB. I'd say the Rams, the Eagles, and the 9ers could all do that.

I don't believe the Rams are an organization content to stay at the level that gets you. Why? Here's the words of the HC in January 2020.



McVay conclusively answered this question. And Snead, Demoff, and Kroenke agreed with him. Does that sound like a HC or an organization that's content to compete the best they can with subpar QBs and let the chips fall where they may? Nope, not a chance.

Elite QBs are hard to find? Of course. So do the work, position yourself, and make it happen even if it's costly. That's literally what the Rams did for Goff and Stafford.

It's not the Rams way to settle.

Still easier said than done as need doesn't influence player availability. Especially elite players.

And luck also plays a role.

From what I've read the Rams don't even have Stafford if not for Holmes wanting Goff.

 

[Allen2McVay]

He would be a bigger risk than Stafford. Despite being younger than what Stafford was 5 yrs ago, he has obviously been a bit fragile to say the least. Now, was that all due to playing behind a poor OL, or is he just an injury prone player? It's scary to hand out a $50M a yr contracts, and giving up a ton of draft capital, to obtain guys who can't stay on the field.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with the narrative that Burrow is injury prone or fragile.

From 2021 - 2024 (Stafford's first four season with the Rams) he started 57 games.

Over the same four-year period, Burrow started 59 games.