Which QB should the Rams draft next year and where?

[jrry32]

I think there is a self fullfilling prophecy side of this. Where the QBs who have the competitive drive and at least enough talent will tend to push their way to the front of the room. Teams get in trouble when they push them to the front of the room to fulfill their draft day beliefs.

This is why I'm leery of QBs who sit comfortably behind others, like Simpson for example. Or those who are all upside and have bad film but go high, like Richardson. To me it speaks of a possible lack of competitive drive. College ball to me is like the savannah, where you get that natural selection effect and the right dudes generally rise. There are always outliers and teams make a lot of efforts to identify them to make their drafts stronger. But I do subscribe to the belief starts and good play are meaningful when projecting a QB to this league.

The NFL is rough man. To succeed as a QB you gotta be competitive as hell, dedicated to your craft, have enough physical tools, have enough mental tools, and along with all that be resilient in your belief in your game. If you were to total it all up, the physical stuff is just a part of what is required. But since they can't measure heart I suppose there's always going to be a lot of guesswork. So one thing you can point to of course is that he actually climbed to the top of the hill and produced. Or to stay with the theme let's say he dominated the savannah.

Good play, yes. I don't see starts the same way. It's arguably easier today than it was in the past because of the transfer portal, but I also don't believe you punish loyalty. There's something to be said for a guy having the character to stick it out behind a talented incumbent QB and earn it. I'm not going to ding a QB for that. Nor will I ding a QB who leaves, as long as he plays well. For example, Joe Burrow transferred to LSU because he couldn't win the starting job at OSU and was probably never going to start there.

 

[gogoat1]

Trade for Stroud on the cheap.

Choker., Nope

 

[DzRams]

Yes and no. The 49ers committed to Jimmy while looking for an upgrade. They whiffed on Lance. The Chiefs committed to Alex Smith while looking for an upgrade. They hit on Mahomes. These things take time. We might get lucky that a franchise QB is on the market when Stafford retires. But that's unlikely. We might also find a franchise QB in the Draft. That's more likely but still far from guaranteed.

End of the day, when Staff calls it quits, they need to have a starting caliber option to step in. Odds are he won't be a great QB. That's just the reality of the situation. Rarely do you have one great QB follow another. It happens on rare occasion (ex. Rodgers following Favre), but it's not the norm. It's why I keep saying that you play the hand you're dealt. If there isn't a franchise QB on the market, it doesn't do any good to demand one. And you may have to commit to a mid-tier QB while you wait for one to become available to you.

The Packers are a great example of transitioning from one QB to the next. Favre to Rodgers to Love. They spent premium draft capital early and developed their QB. No one else does that so there's not a large sample size, but they've shown us the blueprint. Getting this whole sub convo back on track, if they're following this blueprint, I'm skeptical it would be with a retread.

Yes, there is a point where you have to wait for a franchise QB to become available, but my point is, when that happens, be aggressive and seize the day. That's what Pittsburgh, and frankly most teams, refuse to do. That's what we saw with the Goff trade up and the Stafford move. It starts with the understanding that we're not gonna settle longterm for a mid-tier guy.

 

[jrry32]

The Packers are a great example of transitioning from one QB to the next. Favre to Rodgers to Love. They spent premium draft capital early and developed their QB. No one else does that so there's not a large sample size, but they've shown us the blueprint. Getting this whole sub convo back on track, if they're following this blueprint, I'm skeptical it would be with a retread.

Yes, there is a point where you have to wait for a franchise QB to become available, but my point is, when that happens, be aggressive and seize the day. That's what Pittsburgh, and frankly most teams, refuse to do. That's what we saw with the Goff trade up and the Stafford move. It starts with the understanding that we're not gonna settle longterm for a mid-tier guy.

Pittsburgh tried. They drafted Kenny Pickett. He busted. The Packers drafted Rodgers and Love before they needed a QB. They were fortunate enough to have a QB to drop to them in the Draft, and they seized the day. Though, I'm not sure Love is in a higher QB tier than Darnold.

 

[Merlin]

Good play, yes. I don't see starts the same way. It's arguably easier today than it was in the past because of the transfer portal, but I also don't believe you punish loyalty. There's something to be said for a guy having the character to stick it out behind a talented incumbent QB and earn it. I'm not going to ding a QB for that. Nor will I ding a QB who leaves, as long as he plays well. For example, Joe Burrow transferred to LSU because he couldn't win the starting job at OSU and was probably never going to start there.

There is no hard and fast rule for this. If you say you're "not going to punish a guy for having the character to stick it out behind a talented incumbent" then what you are effectively doing is introducing a chance that you'll overlook a lack of competitive drive on the part of a given player.

Other than that I don't think we're all that far apart on the subject. There's usually a large amount of reasons why you'd take a QB or not take him before that would be a deciding factor. But I think it is a potential factor and something that should be considered.

If we have to take a QB who doesn't have ideal size, or arm, or upside in general, I am fine with that. But by God he'd better be the most competitive sumbish on the field. In that regard I subscribe to the Martz view on these guys.

 

[Spider2YB]

We can do a lot worse than a Darnold type. It's not easy to replace a great QB. Ask Pittsburgh.

Trey Lance simply can't hack it. Anthony Richardson was not given an opportunity to sit, which was an idiotic decision given how much of a project he was. A lot of NFL teams make stupid decisions, oftentimes out of desperation. So many of these college QBs are coming from systems that don't ask them to play under center and heavily lean into RPOs. They have to completely reinvent their footwork, learn how to operate with their backs to defenses, and learn how to attack NFL defenses using NFL concepts. It's much easier to learn how to do that while watching a veteran than do it on the fly while starting.

As for the claims about inexperienced QBs, it reminds me of when people used to claim that Air Raid QBs never succeed. Kyler Murray only had 17 or so starts in college. He's been just fine. Cam Newton was a one-year starter in college. He was a NFL MVP. Tom Brady started a grand total of 23 games in college, which includes a number of games where he platooned with Drew Henson. So the difference between being a HOFer and a bust is 8 college starts and roughly 100 more pass attempts? C'mon now.

P.S. Kurt Warner only started for a season in college. How did he turn out?

You’ve yet to point me in the direction of a prospect that was drafted off talent and potential, that sat behind a QB for a year or 2 and then had a good career.

Kurt Warner got an additional 4 years of playing experience after college before he got to St Louis. He was getting actual reps. And Kyler Murray has been fine?? Arizona is going to move on from him. He was also drafted by a highly sought after offensive mind in KK. He’s played in one playoff game. He’s constantly hurt. That’s a terrible example. And Cam Newton is one of the most physically gifted athletes ever, and had the single greatest season in college football history. He dragged an Auburn team that has very little NFL talent to a Natty. That’s a once in a lifetime example. If we came across someone like that, then sure go for it. But that’s not gonna happen.

What you are suggesting doesn’t happen. It just doesn’t. 99% of the best QBs in NFL history all got extensive experience in college.

 

[dieterbrock]

You’ve yet to point me in the direction of a prospect that was drafted off talent and potential, that sat behind a QB for a year or 2 and then had a good career.

Kurt Warner got an additional 4 years of playing experience after college before he got to St Louis. He was getting actual reps. And Kyler Murray has been fine?? Arizona is going to move on from him. He was also drafted by a highly sought after offensive mind in KK. He’s played in one playoff game. He’s constantly hurt. That’s a terrible example. And Cam Newton is one of the most physically gifted athletes ever, and had the single greatest season in college football history. He dragged an Auburn team that has very little NFL talent to a Natty. That’s a once in a lifetime example. If we came across someone like that, then sure go for it. But that’s not gonna happen.

What you are suggesting doesn’t happen. It just doesn’t. 99% of the best QBs in NFL history all got extensive experience in college.

So Jordan Love learned more in college than he did riding pine for 3 years in the NFL?
Less than 20 starts isnt ideal, but NFL coaching and preparation is going to take a guy further than a 2nd year of starting in college

 

[Spider2YB]

So Jordan Love learned more in college than he did riding pine for 3 years in the NFL?
Less than 20 starts isnt ideal, but NFL coaching and preparation is going to take a guy further than a 2nd year of starting in college

Can you point me to an example where this has ever happened??

Like just one example. All I’m asking for.

Jordan Love got almost 40 starts in college. It’s absurd to think he could’ve cut that number in half and still turned into the same player he is now. It doesn’t work that way. It’s never worked that way.

The NFL has a track record. 99% of its greatest QBs all played a ton of college football. Some of them got a ton of experience in college AND also sat behind and learned from an established starter (Rodgers, Brady, Love).

Why would you try and find your next QB from the 1% pool and not the 99% pool?

 

[dieterbrock]

Can you point me to an example where this has ever happened??

Like just one example. All I’m asking for.

Jordan Love got almost 40 starts in college. It’s absurd to think he could’ve cut that number in half and still turned into the same player he is now. It doesn’t work that way. It’s never worked that way.

The NFL has a track record. 99% of its greatest QBs all played a ton of college football. Some of them got a ton of experience in college AND also sat behind and learned from an established starter (Rodgers, Brady, Love).

Why would you try and find your next QB from the 1% pool and not the 99% pool?

Example of what?
You're all over the place. What exact criteria are you looking for?
Matt Cassel didnt even start a single game in college and had a decent NFL career. Ryan Fitzpatrick only started 10-15 games for an Ivy league school and had a nice NFL career. Tom Brady split time with Drew Henson at Michigan, not sure how many starts he even had.
College career gets a guy in to the pros, the rest is up to the player and the development
So I look to Jordan Love who developed by sitting on the bench for 3 years, that's what determined his success.
As for the 99% pool, are you aware of how many QB's start in college for 2-3 years and never make it in the NFL?

 

[Pupped]

We can do a lot worse than a Darnold type. It's not easy to replace a great QB. Ask Pittsburgh.

Trey Lance simply can't hack it. Anthony Richardson was not given an opportunity to sit, which was an idiotic decision given how much of a project he was. A lot of NFL teams make stupid decisions, oftentimes out of desperation. So many of these college QBs are coming from systems that don't ask them to play under center and heavily lean into RPOs. They have to completely reinvent their footwork, learn how to operate with their backs to defenses, and learn how to attack NFL defenses using NFL concepts. It's much easier to learn how to do that while watching a veteran than do it on the fly while starting.

As for the claims about inexperienced QBs, it reminds me of when people used to claim that Air Raid QBs never succeed. Kyler Murray only had 17 or so starts in college. He's been just fine. Cam Newton was a one-year starter in college. He was a NFL MVP. Tom Brady started a grand total of 23 games in college, which includes a number of games where he platooned with Drew Henson. So the difference between being a HOFer and a bust is 8 college starts and roughly 100 more pass attempts? C'mon now.

P.S. Kurt Warner only started for a season in college. How did he turn out?

There will be exceptions to any rule, right?
But.. I mean.. look at JJ McCarthy.. just the latest example of too-few college start syndrome, imo.

Kyler Murray is your example? No.

The thing you're missing with Brady is he was in school the full four years and played in 29 games. Newton is a good example of an exception to the rule.. and being a physical freak is one of the reasons for success. There's no one with that kind of profile in this draft.

I don't think it's solely starts, but I think more experienced is definitely better.

My biggest issue with drafting a QB this year is that no one, outside of Mendoza, would be a first rounder in most other drafts. Just not much QB talent in this draft.

 

[So Ram]

There will be exceptions to any rule, right?
But.. I mean.. look at JJ McCarthy.. just the latest example of too-few college start syndrome, imo.

Kyler Murray is your example? No.

The thing you're missing with Brady is he was in school the full four years and played in 29 games. Newton is a good example of an exception to the rule.. and being a physical freak is one of the reasons for success. There's no one with that kind of profile in this draft.

I don't think it's solely starts, but I think more experienced is definitely better.

My biggest issue with drafting a QB this year is that no one, outside of Mendoza, would be a first rounder in most other drafts. Just not much QB talent in this draft.

EXACTLY!!! Just looking at this game Stetson WON 2 NATTIES & was Drafted by THE RAMS has had 3 RAM NFL Traing Camps with Mcvay & Stafford !! (What’s BECK done since leaving Georgia??).

Jimmy G is a STARTING NFL QB under Sean Mcvays eyes !! He has said SO ,many of times. I like The ONE TOO - Combo .

 

[So Ram]

I’ll say I was wrong about Mendez from Game 2 !! Game 1 ????

Here is ready to win a NATTY which Stetson from above(thank god) TOO !!

This Draft has 3 TOP of 15 O”L’s !! This number #70 Miami sucks at LT!! Holds all the time.Still PUSSED the Refs didn’t call holding against Old MISS !!

That said Miami has 2 Defensive players & the RT going in The FIRST ROUND!!

 

[DragonOfBlood]

If there’s a way to swing Burrow and Arch Manning that’d be wonderful.

 

[den-the-coach]

I would sign up for this draft.

• 1.13 (via Falcons): OT Caleb Lomu, Utah
• 1.29: CB Brandon Cisse, South Carolina
• 3.61: WR Antonio Williams, Clemson
• 3.93: LB Jacob Rodriguez, Texas Tech
• 5.167: QB Cole Payton, North Dakota State
• 6.205 (via Texans): CB Avery Smith, Toledo
• 6.208: RB Noah Whittington, Oregon
• 7.232 (via Ravens): S Xavier Nwankpa, Iowa
• 7.250: OG Ar’maj Reed-Adams, Texas A&M
• 7.256: DT Landon Robinson, Navy

 

[dieterbrock]

But.. I mean.. look at JJ McCarthy.. just the latest example of too-few college start syndrome, imo.

He started like 30 games at Michigan, how many starts is too few?

 

[jrry32]

Kurt Warner got an additional 4 years of playing experience after college before he got to St Louis. He was getting actual reps. And Kyler Murray has been fine?? Arizona is going to move on from him. He was also drafted by a highly sought after offensive mind in KK. He’s played in one playoff game. He’s constantly hurt. That’s a terrible example. And Cam Newton is one of the most physically gifted athletes ever, and had the single greatest season in college football history. He dragged an Auburn team that has very little NFL talent to a Natty. That’s a once in a lifetime example. If we came across someone like that, then sure go for it. But that’s not gonna happen.

What you are suggesting doesn’t happen. It just doesn’t. 99% of the best QBs in NFL history all got extensive experience in college.

My man, correlation =/= causation. You want to know what that is the case? Because QBs were typically not entering the Draft early before the 2000s. It's rare that QBs are in a position to enter the Draft after one year of starting experience in college (due to eligibility restrictions). And even when they are, it's rare that they do. For example, Arch Manning would likely be a top 5 pick this year if he entered the Draft, despite only having a year of starting experience. But he opted to return.

You tried to establish a "rule." I responded by naming a 2x Pro Bowler (Murray), a NFL MVP (Newton), and a NFL HOFer (Warner) who all panned out just fine. There is nothing to your argument.

You’ve yet to point me in the direction of a prospect that was drafted off talent and potential, that sat behind a QB for a year or 2 and then had a good career.

Aaron Rodgers, Jordan Love, Patrick Mahomes, Philip Rivers, etc. Oh wait, let me guess, they don't count because they had more than one year of starting experience. That leaves me with a basically nonexistent sample of QBs. So give me the list of first round QBs who were drafted off talent and potential, only had one year of starting experience in college, sat behind a QB for a year or two, and then failed.

There will be exceptions to any rule, right?
But.. I mean.. look at JJ McCarthy.. just the latest example of too-few college start syndrome, imo.

Kyler Murray is your example? No.

The thing you're missing with Brady is he was in school the full four years and played in 29 games. Newton is a good example of an exception to the rule.. and being a physical freak is one of the reasons for success. There's no one with that kind of profile in this draft.

I don't think it's solely starts, but I think more experienced is definitely better.

My biggest issue with drafting a QB this year is that no one, outside of Mendoza, would be a first rounder in most other drafts. Just not much QB talent in this draft.

There is no rule. Again, you sound like the people a decade ago who were claiming that Air Raid QBs don't succeed. JJ McCarthy is headed towards being a bust. It's not because he started too few games. How do I know? Because Kyler Murray and Cam Newton were just fine and started fewer games. Sometimes, players fail. Sometimes, players succeed. There is no shortcut to evaluating QBs.

P.S. This conversation started because of Ty Simpson, a guy who also spent four years in college. So no, I didn't "miss" that with Brady.

 

[jrry32]

He started like 30 games at Michigan, how many starts is too few?

Yes, thank you! He had more starts and pass attempts at Michigan than Brady did lol.

 

[Pupped]

Yes, thank you! He had more starts and pass attempts at Michigan than Brady did lol.

Fair enough!
I'm not going to move the goalposts.. I'm just going to say that none of the QBs in this draft that the Rams could get seem to be worth a higher draft pick.
I do think that having *more* college experience is a big plus and point to recent success stories.. Jayden Daniels.. Bo Nix.. Jaxson Dart and Tyler Shough make good arguments for the experience thing. Disagree that that's a thing, fine.
McVay needs/likes guys with big arms.. he doesn't do a dink and dunk offense. Levis has a cannon and some experience. I think that's worth a shot at a reasonable price, a 5th or 6th rounder.
Absolutely nothing I've seen from Beck, Simpson or some of the other fringy guys make me think they have enough upside to be the Rams longterm QB.

 

[jrry32]

Fair enough!
I'm not going to move the goalposts.. I'm just going to say that none of the QBs in this draft that the Rams could get seem to be worth a higher draft pick.
I do think that having *more* college experience is a big plus and point to recent success stories.. Jayden Daniels.. Bo Nix.. Jaxson Dart and Tyler Shough make good arguments for the experience thing. Disagree that that's a thing, fine.
McVay needs/likes guys with big arms.. he doesn't do a dink and dunk offense. Levis has a cannon and some experience. I think that's worth a shot at a reasonable price, a 5th or 6th rounder.
Absolutely nothing I've seen from Beck, Simpson or some of the other fringy guys make me think they have enough upside to be the Rams longterm QB.

It's definitely a plus. Where I disagree is the idea that you should rule a QB out because he only has one year of starting experience. As for Levis, that's two rich of a price. He's on an expiring contract. A 5th or 6th is justifiable if we'd have multiple years of team control.

I'm not ruling out a QB being worth one of our firsts in this Draft. There are some intriguing options available. We'll see how the pre-draft process goes.

 

[DzRams]

Fair enough!
I'm not going to move the goalposts.. I'm just going to say that none of the QBs in this draft that the Rams could get seem to be worth a higher draft pick.
I do think that having *more* college experience is a big plus and point to recent success stories.. Jayden Daniels.. Bo Nix.. Jaxson Dart and Tyler Shough make good arguments for the experience thing. Disagree that that's a thing, fine.
McVay needs/likes guys with big arms.. he doesn't do a dink and dunk offense. Levis has a cannon and some experience. I think that's worth a shot at a reasonable price, a 5th or 6th rounder.
Absolutely nothing I've seen from Beck, Simpson or some of the other fringy guys make me think they have enough upside to be the Rams longterm QB.

On the experience thing, the stats do show that when a QB has less than 25 starts, they overwhelmingly fail. I believe that would be mitigated though because our plan wouldn't be to toss them into the fire as an immediate starter which is what is happening with 1st round picks nowadays. Having a guy sit for a year or two like Love and Rodgers before him seems to have some success.

I see no evidence that McVay needs a guy with a big arm / cannon. Goff doesn't have a cannon and he ran the McVay offense well. McVay got tired of his inability to mentally grow and adapt the scheme changes, not because his arm lacked in any way.

For this reason, I see plenty of upside with Simpson or Chambliss.