Audibles at the Line
Unfiltered in-game observations by Football Outsiders staff

Audibles at the Line: 2021 NFL Draft Day 2

Arizona Cardinals WR Rondale Moore
Photo: USA Today Sports Images

compiled by Vincent Verhei

For this special NFL draft edition of Audibles, as with our regular Audibles feature, the FO staff sends around e-mail comments about the draft. We share information, ask questions, and keep everyone else informed as we watch. We then compile a digest of those emails and produce this feature. By its nature, it can be disjointed and dissimilar to the other articles on the site. While these e-mails are written with Audibles in mind, they do not represent a standard review of the draft. That means we aren't going to discuss every pick, or every talking point. We watch the draft as fans as well as analysts, so the discussion may be colored by our rooting interests and aspects of the draft may not be covered to your fullest desires or even at all.


Bryan Knowles: Love the fit of Elijah Moore to the Jets at No. 34; I totally get why the Jets didn't trade down despite tons of reported interest. He could be Deebo Samuel for Mike LaFleur.

Scott Spratt: I wonder if that Moore selection means the Jets will release Jamison Crowder. They could save about $10 million in cap space if they do, and they suddenly have depth at wide receiver after adding Corey Davis and Keelan Cole in free agency and drafting Denzel Mims last year.

Aaron Schatz: Denver trades away a fourth-round pick to move up five spots to get running back Javonte Williams. I agree that you start considering running backs in the second round, but I still wouldn't be trading away additional draft picks to move up for them at this point.

Scott Spratt: I agree, Aaron. That sixth-round to fourth-round pick conversion is huge for just five spots in the second round.

Rivers McCown: The running back market is booming! Three in the top 35!

Vince Verhei: I was worried that if Williams somehow slipped to Seattle, Pete Carroll would not be able to resist him, so I'm glad he's gone.

Bryan Knowles: Also, the Broncos already have a ton of money invested in Melvin Gordon, and then they have Royce Freeman and Mike Boone behind him. I'm not sure why they felt they needed to go up to add someone else to the stable.

Rob Weintraub: Still no offensive linemen off the board—setting up well for Cincy to grab its preferred lineman.

Rob Weintraub: Interesting pick of Jevon Holland by Miami—you can have the Dutchman return punts so you don't risk Waddle...

And somehow they took an ad break not with the Bengals up, but Philly. First shocker of the night...

Scott Spratt: Melvin Gordon has negative rushing DVOA in five of his six career seasons. I think he's a bit better than that suggests, but I don't think the Broncos were set at running back.

Rob Weintraub: Well the Bengals are pulling their patented "trade down in the second round" move (now four times in five years) with the Pats, according to reports. New England will pick 38, Cincy now 46.

Rivers McCown: 2014-2017: 13 running backs taken in the first two rounds

2018-2021: 20 running backs taken in the first two rounds and counting...

Aaron Schatz: I appreciate the Patriots getting the best defensive tackle in the draft—a pass-rusher as much as a run-stopper in Christian Barmore. I do not like them dealing away two fourth-round picks in order to do it.

Rob Weintraub: Two fourths for an eight-pick drop! That'll work...

Scott Spratt: The Patriots may have sniped the Panthers' preferred pick, at least. Carolina just traded back after the Barmore selection.

Rob Weintraub: In a different situation I'm sure the Bengals would have stayed pat and picked the likes of Barmore, but getting a pair of extra picks is too good for them to pass up.

Bryan Knowles: I'd joke that the extent of Bill Belichick's COVID scouting was calling Nick Saban, but that appears to be the go-to strategy for a fifth of the teams this year. Drowning in the Crimson Tide.

Scott Spratt: Come on, Bryan. Urban Meyer took a Georgia player in the second round. They weren't even in the college football playoff!

Tom Gower: Ryan Pace can't help himself from trading up, can he? I get why, based on the public perception of Teven Jenkins, but there were apparently more serious than realized concerns, likely injury-related, that led to his fall.

Bryan Knowles: After a decade of holding steady, Dave Gettleman has just traded down for a second time. I'm flabbergasted.

Rivers McCown: My head is spinning from all the trade action early on in Day 2, Dave Gettleman is working the board this year, baby!

Rob Weintraub: Yes Jenkins was off Cincy's board for the injuries. I think they were extremely leery of Landon Dickerson, too. But it isn't the first round, they shouldn't worry—Bengals second-rounders don't immediately break things like their first-rounders do.

Scott Spratt: I like that the Lions have drafted offensive and defensive linemen with their first two picks. Seems like they might have their rebuild on the right track.

Bryan Knowles: Dolphins are using all that excess value and vaulting up the board twice in the second round. A little confused by the Jevon Holland pick, but Liam Eichenberg was the best lineman left, and the Miami offensive line is a big bag of question marks. Great pick.

Bryan Knowles: I'm kinda enjoying what the Raiders are doing with the draft—safety Trevon Moehrig is a decent grab at a position of need in the first round, and Alex Leatherwood is an intriguing Day 2 pick...

What's that? I have the picks backwards? I think maybe it's Las Vegas who has them backwards, but still.

Rob Weintraub: Yes I think the Bengals were hot for Eichenberg but had to know going back to 46 was a risk for that pick.

Tom Gower: I have no idea how you know how good Jaguars 45th pick Walker Little is, because he opted out of 2020 and tore his ACL in the first game in 2019, so he basically hasn't played football in a couple of years.

Aaron Schatz: Your Bengals got you an offensive lineman, Rob. The offensive tackle run has arrived.

Bryan Knowles: Is Carman going to stay at tackle, I suppose is the question—a lot of big boards, including Scouts Inc., had him shifting inside to guard. No matter the answer, the Bengals will find a use for him, I'm sure. Wouldn't argue against them drafting another lineman today as well.

Bryan Knowles: And of COURSE Walker Little went to Jacksonville. He tore his ACL! That's the siren song for Trent Baalke; he just can't help himself.

Aaron Schatz: Chargers needed a cornerback. I had CFL refugee Tevaughn Campbell listed as a starter. Asante Samuel is a great pickup for them.

Rivers McCown: Forget Tim Tebow's workout, I want to hear about Marcus Lattimore's comeback in Jacksonville.

Rob Weintraub: I'd be shocked if he ever becomes much of a tackle despite his athletic traits. 32.5-inch arm-length guys seldom make that leap in the pros. If they are drafting him to mold into a powerhouse pulling guard than it could work. He is a monster of a man. Cincy native too, for what it's worth.

Passing on Penei Sewell, though, put a lot of pressure on getting a good player here. They could have had Eichenberg, etc. Clearly the team feels new offensive line coach Frank Pollack can make something solid out of him, and they don't hear or feel the outside noise.

Without a doubt they take another lineman—maybe two, especially with the extra fourths courtesy of Mr. Bill.

Bengals go LSU-Clemson Tiger/Tiger in the first two rounds for the second straight draft.

Bryan Knowles: I thought the 49ers might take Samuel at 43 before trading down as their cornerback position at the start of this offseason was a cardboard sign saying "please don't throw here, signed the management." Seeing him go one pick before they get back on the clock makes me sad. I'm sure Aaron Banks will be fine, but dang it!

Rivers McCown: A true Dan Campbell man.

Vince Verhei: I listed wide receiver as "Not a Need" for Arizona in our ESPN draft guides. So of course they use a second-round pick on Purdue wideout Rondale Moore.

First team to 40 points wins in Arizona, I guess. Kliff Kingsbury really is building a Big 12 team.

Aaron Schatz: I guess they're giving up on Andy Isabella?

Derrik Klassen: My leading thought for the night is that the Bengals skipping on Penei Sewell looks even worse. Just significantly tougher to find offensive tackle talent outside the first round than wide receiver talent, in my opinion. I suppose this could have been circumvented to some degree by taking Teven Jenkins, but man, I do not like the Bengals approach and taking Jackson Carman as their Sewell "consolation."

Rivers McCown: Andy Wasabella.

Scott Spratt: Isabella has just 30 catches in two seasons and had a -24.4% receiving DVOA last year. I suspect they're ready to move on.

Rob Weintraub: I mean, does anyone feel more like a Cardinal than Rondale Moore?

Giants wind up with Azeez Ojulari. Great value if he stays healthy.

Scott Spratt: The Panthers traded back again. Am I the only fan excited to not make picks?

Rivers McCown: No Scott, I'm right there with you. Except for the trade down part.

Rob Weintraub: The problem with all the "take a tackle to protect Burrow!" talk is that virtually everyone seems to forget they just drafted a top-10 left tackle, Jonah Williams, whom they love despite the injuries that have limited him to a dozen games or so in two seasons. They have said throughout that he will remain the left tackle. And they signed Riley Reiff for right tackle, who may not be a long-term answer but will be better than anyone they'd draft and throw in as a rookie, I guess aside from Sewell. Where they are really lacking is size and power at guard, and that's where they envision Carman. If he develops into a tackle eventually, which I doubt, that's gravy.

Tom Gower: My favorite team's general manager doesn't know how to trade down, so I don't know what it feels like.

Scott Spratt: This is the best addition of Macho Man Randy Savage to a non-wrestling event since that Skyrim mod.

Aaron Schatz: The Browns stopped Jeremiah Owusu-Koramoah's slide and they traded up to do it—with a trade that was *even* based on the more advanced draft value models. Love that Browns front office.

Bryan Knowles: Love the Browns finally stopping Jeremiah Owusu-Koramoah; enjoyed the Randy Savage impersonator. But more importantly, did Charles Davis just refer to Hogan/Savage as the Towers of Power? For shame, man.

Derrik Klassen: JOK has to be a regular off-ball linebacker in Cleveland, I would imagine. They have four decent (if healthy) cornerbacks and I'm personally high on Ronnie Harrison as a third safety, so I'm not sure how JOK sees much work in the slot.

Rob Weintraub: Given the secondary injury history in Cleveland and tackling issues at linebacker, I'm sure JOK will be a depth move-around guy at worst.

Tom Gower: Titans take Dillon Radunz with their second-round pick. I wondered just how high of a priority tackle would be for them. Yeah, Kendall Lamm is currently penciled in as their starting right tackle and that's not great, but they came into the draft with five other pretty significant needs. I mean, we have Daylon Mack as their third defensive tackle as of right now (realistically, it might be last year's fifth-round pick Larrell Murchison, but he barely played last year and I'm waiting for them to take one to update that); their third outside linebacker is "your guess is as good as mine"; they don't have a tight end who can function as both a blocker and a receiver; and they don't have three legitimate receivers; so I wasn't super-high on them taking a tackle. But if they wanted a new one, I guess now is the time to do it.

Vince Verhei: "Russell, we know you're frustrated, but sit tight and we'll get you a new receiver as soon as we can, OK?"

Rivers McCown: I had Radunz to the Colts in our draft guide instead of the Titans, haha. I like the pick. I do wonder if A.J. Brown is going to get 200 targets next year.

Scott Spratt: The Packers could learn from the Seahawks' example, Vince.

Carl Yedor: Seattle's front office has left its mark on drafts over the years by trading down, but those trades typically take place in the late first round. They tend to look to trade up more often in the second round and aggressively pursue guys on their board such as DK Metcalf and Jarran Reed, to name two. This year that wasn't an option considering that they entered the draft with just three picks.

They did stick at 56 here and pick wide receiver D'Wayne Eskridge, which I was a touch surprised about considering the lack of pick volume, but they were very wary of how COVID would impact player evaluations. That should not have been a reason to simply ignore this season. Seattle needed a third receiver badly because the depth chart right now is Tyler Lockett, DK Metcalf, and a bunch of question marks afterward. Eskridge is 24, which isn't ideal, but it was at least a logical position to attack instead of, say, running back.

Vince Verhei: OK, I laughed out loud at the framed portrait of Roger Goodell in the Rams' war room.

Aaron Schatz: D'Wayne Eskridge was Playmaker's preferred sleeper. Although there isn't really value when your sleeper goes in the second round. PFF apparently hates him. We'll see.

Scott Spratt: Aaron, maybe you should consider renting the FO crew a house somewhere tropical for the draft next year.

Vince Verhei: Scott, that seems like a great usage of some of that sweet, sweet Twitch money.

I also had wide receiver as "Not a Need" for the Rams. So of course they take Tutu Atwell out of Louisville.

The NFC West is never boring, that's for sure.

Derrik Klassen: Tutu Atwell makes sense for the Rams in that these McVay/Shanahan/etc. schemes tend to love some sort of deep threat, particularly from the slot. The issue year one is that the Rams have DeSean Jackson, so it kinda seems like Atwell is mostly a gadget player until at least Year 2.

Scott Spratt: That may only be an issue for a game or two, Derrik, given Jackson's recent injury track record.

Carl Yedor: And then the Rams follow up Seattle's pick of a short wide receiver with a short receiver of their own in Tutu Atwell. Interested to see how McVay uses Atwell this year. He probably fits in as a field-stretcher for them. Dane Brugler of The Athletic had Atwell and Eskridge ranked 10 and 11, respectively, on his board. Terrace Marshall is still out there though.

Tom Gower: The Cardinals took Rondale Moore, listed at 5-foot-7 in Dane Brugler's draft guide. The Seahawks took D'Wayne Eskridge, listed under 5-foot-9. The Rams took Atwell, also listed under 5-foot-9. What do NFC West teams know that I do not?

Derrik Klassen: That's a good point, Scott. Probably optimistic of me to believe DJax is playing 17 games.

Scott Spratt: At least my Panthers still like big receivers, Tom.

Rivers McCown: Man, I'd be so in on the Panthers as a trendy sleeper if they didn't have Sam Darnold at quarterback.

Tom Gower: Hopefully his knees are actually in better shape than yours or mine, Scott. Terrace Marshall is a fun player who would have gone a while ago if healthy.

Scott Spratt: How am I just now finding out that Carlos Basham goes by "Boogie Basham?" Suddenly I love the pick.

Rob Weintraub: Kellen Mond is going to be a popular choice to replace Kirk Cousins on Minneapolis sports-talk radio this winter...

Bryan Knowles: Recap of last few picks: Meh quarterback, Baalke torn ACL guy, meh quarterback, meh quarterback.

Tons of fun :P

(The Houston Texans select Stanford QB Davis Mills.)

Rivers McCown: Thanks, I hate it.

Rob Weintraub: Bengals take defensive end Joseph Ossai in the third round. Desperately needed a pass-rusher, and he's an athletic freak. We'll see if he develops into Carlos Dunlap, or his inconsistency follows him to the pros. Thought they might go Milton Williams, small-school Geno type here, or maybe Quinn Meinerz. But pass rush trumps those needs.

Scott Spratt: The hipster Minnesota sports talk radio stations can now demand that linebacker Chazz Surratt start over Kirk Cousins at quarterback, Robert.

Carl Yedor: I support the fullback representation by the Raiders in having Alec Ingold announce two back-to-back third-round picks tonight.

Scott Spratt: The NFL Network shows a stat for all of the pick announcers, and for Ingold, they showed that he has two career receiving touchdowns. Outstanding.

Scott Spratt: They did it! Green Bay did it! They drafted a wide receiver!

Bryan Knowles: They'll save money on jerseys, too, when Amari Rodgers takes No. 12 after Aaron is traded, right?

Tom Gower: He did it! Jon Robinson trades back! Got a fourth-round pick for moving back from 85 to 92. I can stop my constant complaint about how he has never traded back while on the clock in the first five rounds of the draft.

Bryan Knowles: Trey Sermon's not a terrible player for this point in the draft (though BackCAST is NOT a fan), but the 49ers are passing up on Elijah Molden and Ifeatu Melifonwu to take him. I'm fairly sure I'm somewhere on their cornerback depth chart as it currently stands. And they traded up for him!

The 49ers are filling positions of need, I suppose, but Russell Wilson, Matthew Stafford, and Kyler Murray are in your division; it is conceivable that, at some point, you're going to have to cover someone.

Aaron Schatz: Running back was a position of need? With Raheem Mostert, Wayne Gallman, JaMycal Hasty, and Jeff Wilson?

Scott Spratt: Woah, I thought Kyle Shanahan only drafted running backs with sub-4.40 40 times. Sermon ran a 4.60.

Bryan Knowles: Aaron, none of those guys are under contract for 2022 (though Hasty is an exclusive-rights free agent). It was a Round 4 or 5 need, not a Day 2 need, but I get grabbing someone at some point.

Scott Spratt: Texans doing Texans things. Did I see that right that they traded next year's fourth-rounder plus the two later picks this year for this Panthers' pick?

Bryan Knowles: I really enjoy the Browns' picks here on Day 2. Anthony Schwartz is going to leave people in the dust. All Cleveland needs to do now is teach him where to run and what to do when the ball is headed his way. You know, minor details.

Tom Gower: After trading back, the Titans take a couple of guys late in the third round.

The first, Monty Rice, is a real head-scratcher to me. I thought they might think they could use a little more depth at linebacker, but thought they were likely to be relatively confident in their top three of Rashaan Evans, the re-signed Jayon Brown, and David Long, who got experience filling in for Brown after he was injured last year. Given their remaining needs (my prediction for tonight was they'd add much-needed depth at outside linebacker, wide receiver, and tight end), I didn't see a real way for outside linebacker to make it onto a priority list. Robinson has been primarily a current needs-oriented drafter, and I'll be very curious how he describes this selection.

The second, Elijah Molden, doubles down on their need at cornerback. He was a safety in the base defense at Washington and projects as a slot corner and maybe plus. I'll be curious how the Titans project him, if it's as a safety who can play slot, as a pure slot corner and core special teams player, or what. He was a terrific college player and most people had him going much higher, but isn't big at only 5-foot-9 and didn't run well with a 4.60s 40-yard dash. Also, they already took a corner and have significant needs at outside linebacker, wide receiver, and tight end. Even with the extra fourth-round pick they got from trading back, I'm curious to see how they fill their remaining needs and which remain unfilled.

Comments

48 comments, Last at 10 May 2021, 11:10am

1 Poxy Mid-Round QBs

Would love to see some stats on how many of these eventually produce a good starter. Seems like pissing picks up the wall.

2 Any pick's uncertain, but QB…

In reply to by LondonMonarch

Any pick's uncertain, but QB picks in particular are lottery tickets.  I've seen, but can't locate, past articles on the expected value from players at each draft position (this is built into the draft value charts, but someone here has produced more interesting analysis around this).  The thing with QBs is the upside is so big, you can get to the expected value with relatively low chance of success.  I have the same issue with QB picks anywhere outside the Top 5 - take NE's pick of Jones at 15, for example.  Most likely result is that's a 1st round draft pick flushed down the toilet, but maybe its a quality player at the most important position.

Anyway, I echo your sentiment that seeing the historical success rate of players at different draft positions segregated out by position would be interesting.  

6 In the current environment…

In the current environment where QB pay is still accelerating, honestly a first-round QB pick is pretty much worth it regardless unless the player turns out to be completely unplayable, like Johnny Manziel or Dwayne Haskins.

Even guys like Daniel Jones, and Darnold aren't necessarily horrible picks once you consider the cap savings. Yes, Jones and Darnold are "frighteningly bad", but I'm assuming a portion of that is due to the team itself (whereas even though Haskins wasn't far off from Darnold or Jones, the team stopped playing him, which says something more).

If you look at the Bears, for instance, honestly Trubisky would've been a perfectly fine pick for them if they hadn't like, pissed away resources on Foles. Obviously you don't want to keep him around, but Trubisky's DVOA went -17%, 4%, -11%, -8%. That's... actually pretty darn good return for ~$7M/yr.

It's a harder argument for Darnold but they did get a pretty decent return on him. If you pressed me on whether Darnold was a failed pick I'd say yes. Trubisky's a much easier call.

9 You only have one starting QB

I partly agree with this. The big thing is the rookie pay scale which means you can move on from a Darnold or a Jones or Trubisky without ruinous consequences. That makes it much more economical to take a punt on a first round QB even if they are not (is anyone?!) a "sure thing".

I don't agree with the return-on-investment analysis here, because you only have one starting QB. Sure, I get the point that in the free agent market it would cost you a lot more per annum to get someone with similar fairly bad production. But either way, your team is going to be bad (or at least not good) with one of those players. It's not a success to condemn your team to be mediocre-at-best but to do so cheaply.

In other words, the reason first-round QBs are generally a worthwhile pick is that they are reasonably-priced lottery tickets to genuine success, not that they are economical routes to mediocrity.

10 This assumes a team's…

This assumes a team's success is entirely attributable to a QB. But a team with a mediocre QB with excellent talent around him can easily get to the playoffs. In fact, that's probably the safest way to elevate your team's floor, even if it limits your ceiling.

11 No it doesn't

It absolutely doesn't assume a team's success is entirely attributable to a QB. It proceeds on the basis that if you want to have a realistic chance of winning a Super Bowl (which, after all, is the point) then you are not going to do that by having a below-average QB, even if that is saving you $15m on the salary cap.

13 No, but the savings on the…

In reply to by LondonMonarch

No, but the savings on the cap (which is more like $20M/yr) is enough to ensure that you aren't *falling behind other teams* while you're gambling that the QB will improve.

Mariota, Trubisky, and Winston didn't harm those teams. And Chicago would actually have been in solid shape without Foles right now: even with a high priced Khalil Mack on the roster. Solid, of course, with the caveat that they don't know if they have a QB.

12 The ROI point is that you…

The ROI point is that you have to have a minimum level of competency at QB. You can't just throw Random Guy out there, or you'll start losing other vets on the team, too. So you're not going to be able to just play out, say, Manziel for 4 years and bank the savings. Or Haskins.

Trubisky was totally good enough for the Bears to just be patient and move on after a few years, hoping for improvement. I'm not saying that a team would be *happy* with that - just that the savings and competency are enough that taking the risk doesn't *hurt* your team.

14 I guess a lot of this depends

.... on how much you think being 7-9 year after year with no prospect of a SB run is better than being 4-12.

I can see that a Trubisky adds "value" in the mathematical sense that he helps you get the former rather than the latter, by providing poor-but-not-disastrous QB play for 15m less than you would have pay a Foles to do the same.

But in the sporting sense, I am not sure that it adds value or can be said to be a good pick at all - because (save in some truly exceptional cases) all that kind of QB play really does is lock you into a position where you are not rock bottom but you are never going to contend. I don't think most fans want that.

15 Hard to get fans to buy in

even here that one 2-14 season is better in the long term.

But I'm with you on these comments. Ironic Haskins is brought up because even if he was a worse option, Smith was the answer? Turns out...not even enough to stay on the roster...or in the league (ok he retired but it's probably because he wasn't getting enough calls). I've long tried to explain my disdain for mediocre (or poor but not disastrous) QB play as it usually puts you in purgatory (aka not rock bottom for a high pick on your choice of QB or not really being able to contend). 

Going back to Haskins in Washington, it would've been better to confirm, even more so, that he's not the answer. We already knew what Smith was and he wasn't an answer, as expected. So even if Haskins plays worse, they're likely in line for another QB. Instead they picked 19 and, in reality the top 5 QBs were off the board (as expected) by the time their pick rolled around. Ironic it was also another stuck in purgatory NFC wild card team that had just signed mediocre QB to $11ish mil (aka look at all the cap savings) this offseason, that jumped them to get up their ceiling. But the Fitztragic signing kept them a little too comfortable (and banking on the rest of the team to play as well as they did last year, which we know defenses arent always that sticky).

23 "that one 2-14 season is…

"that one 2-14 season is better in the long term."

You can't choose to have a 2-14 season. It happens because you're god-awful as an organization, top to bottom. List of some modern great coaches: Parcells, Belichick, Reid, Harbaugh, Payton, Tomlin, right? Good list? Worse seasons that all of them combined have ever had is a single 4-12 season (Reid) that occurred with massive extenuating circumstances, and Bill Parcells's first season in New York. Keep adding others: Schottenheimer, Cowher. Same thing - Schottenheimer's got a single 4-12 season, and that's it. Even Jeff Fisher's "ultra-cap hell tank" in 05 bottomed out at 4-12 (and he's not exactly a great coach).

Pretty much the best a good coach/organization can do is "choose" to be mediocre, which probably averages out to say 6-7 wins.

"Going back to Haskins in Washington, it would've been better to confirm, even more so, that he's not the answer."

Keep in mind teams have way more information than we do - I'm pretty sure that the team confirmed it pretty darn well to themselves, and given what Haskins was signed for, the rest of the league agrees. 

"So even if Haskins plays worse, they're likely in line for another QB. Instead they picked 19"

If they continued to play Haskins - while they were in line for a playoff spot - half the vets on the team would've quit and the downward spiral of players not wanting to play there would start. Total tanking literally costs veterans money, and then eventually the team. They have performance bonuses in their contract, and their future contract values would be reduced (this is well demonstrated).

High picks really just aren't worth that much. If what you were talking were possible, why do none of the coaches I mentioned above do that?

31 Semantics

There are things that can be done to make things better or worse.

I could've swore we've been over this before but the Jags realized they weren't real contenders so they sold off the (old) pieces that still had some value left, even if it cost them a win or two last season. And now they have Trevor Lawrence. No, they don't expect to win it all this year but 2/3 years down the line they hope to. Even if that doesn't guarantee a championship.

And yeah those coaches didn't have to lose that much because the coach that does go 4-12 gets fired. Urban could join that club...because he has Trevor Lawrence starting at 0-0! They take over after the bad season is done and start anew. 

The WFT also had even MORE information on Smith, and they were right, he was better. Congrats? Haskins at least could have some room to grow. And if he hadn't by the end of the season, they're likely picking high enough for a new QB. That doesnt seem that bad as opposed to trying to get hyped about a 38 year old journeyman imo. The playoff spot was meaningless in the grand scheme of things. The worst playoff team, they didn't have much of a shot outside of almost pure luck. But if Haskins is leading them to a playoff spot, you might have a workable QB with upside instead of one about to retire (from being a game manager)! 

The fear of people quitting is so overblown and frankly has what evidence? Did the WFT get someone like Brady to come this year? Who is still hurt over the Eagles losing week 17, because there were plleeeeeenttty right after. Didn't one of their OL cry about it public then sign an extension a few weeks later (Kelce?) 

You think the Jags free agents cared about them trading Bouye and Campbell? Lol, no they just took the most money. 

High picks are certainly worth it if the alternative is what Washington just put themselves in. Lawrence is sooooooooooooo much more exciting and hopeful than Ryan Fitzpatrick and what...9-8? 

The players, and usually coaches, dont tank, but the FO definitely should. And the biggest factor to that is the QB. If you're QB is really good, great! If he's really bad, so what, he'll get you high picks. A QB in between is so boring and pointless for the long term. It doesn't matter if Nick Foles or Andy Dalton is the backup since their in the same mediocre tier. And going with Alex Smith has to be depressing for long term success since he's neither good nor bad. Where's the value in...what did they do tangibly do/get from playing him over, apparently very bad Haskins? A first round exit from a long time vet that nobody was surprised that got smacked in the WC. Eh. I guess Fitz is an upgrade. But for how long? And what value is he providing long term? They're going all in...with Fitz? Not Aaron Rodgers? Not Drew Brees? Not Tom Brady? I suppose that's one way to use resources and get use Fitz "discount" on Curtis Samuel. What do you think, realistically, their ceiling is?

I guess this just goes to show my point getting even knowledgeable fans here to see the lack of value in being mediocre...is hard! Would rather go .500 in hope that Brady or Manning somehow joins you in FA, in the off chance he reaches it, or trading a bunch of picks since theyre picking so low. 

Also Parcells went 3-12-1 his first year lol. I think yall are getting a little too caught up in the exact amount of wins and not focusing enough on just obtaining a great QB (which is most strongly correlated to success from a single play position). In whatever way. In FA it's extremely hard, or rather infrequent (and come with caveats like Manning and Brees injury qs or just old age like Brady). And outside of the top of the draft, it's hard too

16 Well, we've seen the Browns…

Well, we've seen the Browns try and discard QB after QB, and after 29? 30? attempts, they may still not have one of those franchise QBs you are supposedly looking for. I think they'd have been happy with some 7-9 seasons in a row.

17 Really?

Really? What a strange approach (a) in America of all places and (b) in a salary-capped league where more-or-less all teams have equal resources.

In European football there are teams aiming for mediocrity, but that reflects long-term budget inequalities. No-one in the NFL should be aiming for 7-9: at least not on the basis of a team that is capped at that level by mediocre QB play. I imagine the Jags or the Jets might be content with 7-9 next year, but that is on the basis of building something with a higher upside.

19 I think the apparent…

In reply to by LondonMonarch

I think the apparent disjuncture is that you're talking about 'aiming' at 7-9. I could equally say no team should 'aim' at 4-12. Neither really is relevant here.

A team that has gone 7-9 for four straight years is much much MUCH closer to a Super Bowl, all other things being equal, than a team that has gone 4-12 for one, two, or more straight years.

20 All other things are not…

All other things are not equal though. 7-9 is something worth being if you are an improving team with an improving QB and are likely to get better next year. But QB who isn't going to improve isn't adding value getting you to 7-9, however, cheaply. He's keeping you in purgatory.

21 7-9 isn't something you …

7-9 isn't something you "choose." A 7-9 team with very bad luck is 4-12, and I cannot imagine anyone with a competent coaching staff/front office doing worse than 4-12. You just have to be really really bad to do that.

Think of the long-term success teams. Ravens, Steelers, Eagles, Green Bay, Patriots. All of them bottomed out at 4-12 at worst, and that always precipitated a regime change. 4-12 is literally the "you're fired" mark for good teams. Ravens have coasted through 5-11 years. Steelers, Packers, and Eagles have had 6-10 years. Patriots bottomed out at 7-9.

Teams don't go below 5 wins due to a bad QB. Ravens only had a single 5-11 year with Flacco. Steelers had 2 6-10 seasons in the mess of the Kordell Stewart/Tommy Maddox era. Patriots obviously bottomed out at 7-9 with Cassel and Newton. Eagles had a single 4-12 year in the 6 years post-McNabb.

They go below 5 wins due to being terrible teams. Bad front office that no one wants to play for. Coaches that have no clue what they're doing. Horrible drafting. And honestly I could add a huge number of teams to the list of "never bad enough to have a 4-12 season outside of a regime change." The Broncos have been sifting through absolute garbage QBs for the past 5 years and they've bottomed out at 5-11. 

But QB who isn't going to improve

Quarterbacks do improve over their careers. QB improvement over the first 5 years is extremely clear on average. So long as the QB can keep your team above the "hell no I'm not going there" line, the cap savings is enough to justify the risk of waiting to see if they do.

This is the entire point. It'd be stupid for the Bears to say, sign a QB like Trubisky at 32, even for vet minimum, to start for them. Duh. That's obvious. But quarterbacks do improve at around year 3-4. So a QB who looks above replacement is totally worth risking to see if he improves. Worst case you have a bit of a down year and bank $20M in savings. Best case you've got a QB who at his peak will give you a window to be an actual contender.

 

22 But your original…

But your original proposition was that a QB who doesn't improve (Trubisky was your example) has given you a "pretty darn good return" because he has helped you to be a bit below average rather than absolutely terrible.

My point is that that is not a "darned good return" - because there is no value in being 7-9 with no prospect of improvement, rather than 4-12. The Bears would be probably be better right now if Trubisky had been JaMarcus Russell, because they'd have jettisoned him 2 years ago and be further along in their rebuild.

24 My point is that that is not…

My point is that that is not a "darned good return" - because there is no value in being 7-9 with no prospect of improvement, rather than 4-12.

It's literally impossible to claim that Trubisky had no prospect for improvement. He's a quarterback. They have a growth curve. He played reasonably, and the Bears should've stuck with him as a bet that he'd improve more, and then if he didn't, you let him go and draft another one.

And the value in having a mediocre QB is that you don't have to spend money to bring in a free agent quarterback to get you to mediocre. As a team you literally cannot choose to be godawful. It simply doesn't work that way. You cannot tell guys to go out there and not play, and if they see you choosing to play someone horrible, they'll do the smart thing for themselves and go somewhere else.

Jeez, the Eagles got called dysfunctional and Pederson was roasted for not trying to win one game. You think any coach could keep his team doing that for an entire season?

25 Seems like we fundamentally…

Seems like we fundamentally disagree on 2 things.

First, while I agree that Trubisky must have had potential for improvement at the start, I don't agree that when assessing retrospectively where he brought "a good return" one should be pricing in any possible future improvement. There is virtually no chance of him suddenly turning into a top 10 QB. So the "return" he brought was allowing them to be mediocre for 4 years relatively cheaply, and then be left having to draft a new QB anyway.

Second, we disagree whether being mediocre for 4 years is something which is better than stinking it up for 2 years then blowing it all up and rolling the dice again.

I don't think it is, because I don't think 7 wins really feels any better than 4 wins - the NFL is all about being a contender. Most fans would rather alternate 3-13 with 13-3, than constantly go 8-8. 

Your argument seems to be that players really care and it affects recruitment/retention in a big way. I am sceptical about that- clearly players want to play for a winning team, but I am doubtful that they draw a big distinction in favour of a 7-9 team that's persisting with a below-average QB, over a 4-12 team that is about to start again with a high draft pick. I suspect many would see Miami last year and the Jags/Jets this year as better destinations than last year's Bears or this year's Giants.

On your last point, it's not about tanking or choosing to be bad. It's about whether, in retrospect, you would have been better off being really bad that consistently somewhat lousy. While there was plenty of controversy about the Eagles Wk 17 approach, I suspect most people would agree that they were better off losing that game and getting #6 not #11.

26   It's really just one…

 

It's really just one disagreement. It's this:

 I am sceptical about that- clearly players want to play for a winning team, but I am doubtful that they draw a big distinction in favour of a 7-9 team that's persisting with a below-average QB, over a 4-12 team that is about to start again with a high draft pick

You're looking at the decision a year late. I'm saying you can't tank intentionally to get to that 4-12 level, because the veterans on the team will blow up on you, because intentionally tanking hurts their free agency value. And in some cases it literally hurts their actual value, if their contract has performance bonuses.

A player's statistical performance is one of the strongest determinants of his free agency value. If a team actively tanks (which is the only real way to get to 4-12 without luck!) of course it's going to hurt their value with future free agents.

Again, the strongest argument in favor of my point is that extreme tanking just doesn't happen in the NFL. Everyone in 2019 was arguing that Miami was tanking, and geez, it certainly seemed as if they were - and it resulted in them landing at 5-11. The Titans "tanked" in 2004-2005 and they went 5-11/4-12 (with Jeff Fisher and a McNair injury as a confounding variable). The Patriots went out last year and did like nothing to deal with their losses, and still ended up 7-9. 

Honestly the best example I think is Miami in 2019, and after they were at 0-7 everyone was like "wait, why are you guys winning now. They switched from Fitzpatrick -> Rosen -> Fitzpatrick. Why would you do that? Either they're completely insane, or the idea of literally playing a worse player has confounding problems.

--

That's the only disagreement. I believe there's strong disincentive to play or switch to a clearly worse option at a position, because the players know that's what you're doing. With that belief, the return that Trubisky gave (being good enough that they could keep playing him) was worth the gamble that he might improve. This also is why the Foles trade was bad - because he offered no better return (he wasn't going to be a higher-tier starter), at higher cost, with no possible upside.

27 That seems to me to re-frame…

That seems to me to re-frame the debate as a prospective one about whether you should try to tank or deliberately have bad QB play. I am not saying that.

The original proposition was whether one would say now (ie retropsectively) that someone like Trubisky had been good value because he brought non-awful QB play at a cheap price. My view on that remains no, because in hindsight the Bears would've been better off, or at least not worse off, with 2 very bad years than 4 fairly bad ones.

Of course in some ways that is slightly academic (except perhaps on the question of how early to cut bait on a young QB) - there is force in the point that drafting a 1st round QB is generally a good lottery ticket to buy because the upside is very high and the downside (against a shitty and expensive free agent market) relatively low.

 

29 My view on that remains no,…

My view on that remains no, because in hindsight the Bears would've been better off, or at least not worse off, with 2 very bad years than 4 fairly bad ones.

I'm not reframing anything. I'm saying that my opinion here is that you cannot make the choice you're proposing. You're linking two things (Trubisky playing bad and the Bears getting a high draft pick) that are not actually linked.

I mean - think of it this way. Suppose Trubisky comes in and he's terrible. They'll still probably go 5-11 at worst. Fox gets fired. Nagy comes in, and of course they're going to give Trubisky a second year. They went 12-4 in Nagy's first year! Trubisky can't possibly be so bad to put them at 4-12. They wouldn't've kept playing him! Chase Daniel would've taken over, and they would've went like, 10-6. 8-8 at worst. They certainly wouldn't've overtaken Arizona for the #1 pick!

Now it's 2019, and they're likely mid-first round. Drafting a QB there isn't a good option. (That's when Dwayne Haskins was available, mind you!) So what would Nagy have done? Dumped Trubisky, obviously... and very likely acquired Foles. End result? Exactly the same. Again - you can't just play someone who's total garbage. That's just not an option. And Foles obviously would've chosen free agency with the Bears - again, higher performance = higher market value.

Compare that to just playing Trubisky and never acquiring Foles. Exact same results, less cost. That's the only comparison you can make. You can't compare "mediocre QB on good team" to "bad QB on bad team" because you're changing two things at once.

Again, look at the "horrible failed QB picks." JaMarcus Russell - team replaced him with a free-agent QB because they weren't bad enough to be in a position to get a QB. Sam Bradford - same.

Yes, you can point at Arizona and say "look, look!" But the thing with Arizona is they had a regime change there - the team that Rosen went to was a bad team. They fired the coach after 1 year and revamped everything. That's totally different. Yes, it might've been totally better for Nagy and Trubisky combined to have sucked and the team borked itself so badly that they ended up beating Arizona out for Kingsbury and Kyler Murray. But  that's like saying "it would've been better if Chicago had played the lottery and won."  You don't get to choose those things. You just get to play the lottery.

28 Value of mediocrity vs complete tank

The Carolina Panthers before Cam Newton are the only dumpster fire team that I can think of over the past 20 years that made the Super Bowl within a few years.  If I missed a team please post it as a response here.  Go back to the entire Super Bowl era, got anyone?  I can add Peyton Manning's Colts. Maybe the Greatest show on turf from 4-12 to championship with Kurt Warner.  But 4-12 is not a dumpster fire, lets talk Detroit Lions and Cleveland Browns, what have either accomplished since 0-16?  Cleveland has finally changed the organization, and finally there is some hope there.

I totally agree with Pat on virtually every point he made.  His list of coaches, his 2019 Miami Dolphins example, his comments about other players on the team, etc. 

If the idea were to tank, there would be a bidding war for Nathan Pederman.  You could get the worst QB, and bid up his salary to eat into your cap resulting in poor play from other positions. This would be absurd.

When you are 2-14 you have so many holes to fill that even getting a QB is not going to get you to the promised land quickly.  You only get 5 years on the rookie deal, Cincinnati for example has already wasted away 1 year of Joe Burrow with their horrifying offensive line.  Arizona is the only team that I can think of that brilliantly did a "do over" by dumping Rosen after a year and starting fresh with Kyler Murray.

I will list again as I did during the regular season the mediocre QB's that have made a Super Bowl since 2000, this is not ancient history, the most recent champion of the list being Nick Foles.

The mediocre Super Bowl winners:

Trent Dilfer

Brad Johnson

Eli Manning

Eli Manning again

Joe Flacco

Nick Foles

Argue all you want about Eli, he is mediocre as were his two teams that won championships.  When they open the mediocre hall of fame, he should be the first inductee.

The mediocre Super Bowl losers:

Kerry Collins

Rich Gannon

Jake Delhomme

Matt Hassleback

Rex Grossman

Colin Kaepernick

Jarred Goff

Jimmy Garrapolo

 

You can go 8-8 or 7-9 all day with this list of QB's above, AND make it to or even win the Super Bowl. The Giants sure did, the Ravens did once they resigned Flacco, and yes the Eagles wish that they did, so little removed from a championship, look where they are now.  Don't you think that they wished that Wentz regressed to mediocrity so that they could stay in the hunt, maybe work with him to get back to his 2017 form, or pick up a few players to get back into contention as opposed to needed a dozen players?  Ask Pat the Eagles fan, I assume that he does not want the Eagles falling further to go to 2-14.

Here is the list of  0-16/1-15 teams in history, who is quickest to a championship?

1980 Saints

1989 Cowboys

1990 Patriots

1996 Jets

2000 Chargers

2001 Panthers

2007 Dolphins

2008 Lions

2009 Rams

2016 Browns

2017 Browns

2020 Jacksonville

The mediocre model will get you much closer to a championship than this bottom of the barrel list of toilet bowl teams.

The answer I believe is 1989 Dallas, just 7 years from a championship in 1996.   The idea of being a dumpster fire, and getting a QB savior to win a championship is absurd.

As I said earlier, Cam Newton is the exception, getting his team to the Super Bowl as the number 1 pick, ironically this absurd business model only works for the Panthers as they made the Super Bowl in 2003 just 2 years after making the list shown above.  Jake Delhomme, power to ya.

Of course Peyton Manning is another exception, it worked out fine for him as a number 1 pick.  Andrew Luck, you never finished what you started, maybe you can add Indianapolis as a successful dumpster fire to championship/dumpster fire to every year contender list.

 

 

 

 

 

30 This has turned into a very…

This has turned into a very weird argument about tanking, which is not the issue here.

On the "value" of mediocre QB play, one could quibble about the list (was Gannon mediocre in those Oakland years - he was an AP 1st team all-pro in 2000 and 2002?). But even taken at face value, it seems to tell you that 14 out of 44 teams to make the SB since 2000 have had "mediocre" QBs, and of those teams only one (Eli's Giants) made more than one SB. As a % of teams with a mediocre QB in that 22-season span, I would guess that is pretty low. It is certainly not an advert for persisting with mediocre QB play, unless you have a genuinely exceptional D (as a number of those teams did).

The "dumpster fire" list is of little assistance, not least because it is a tiny sample size (12 teams over 42 seasons) and only 1 team out of 32 wins a championship. But it is clear that you can go from bad team to very strong team very quickly:as you say the Colts have done it twice (3-13 the year before they picked Manning, 13-3 his 2nd season; and then 2-14 before they picked Luck, 11-5 in his first season). Newton for the Panthers. See also the Falcons (4-12 pre-Ryan, 11-5 his rookie year) or the WFT (5-11 before RGIII, 10-6 his rookie year).

I am also an Eagles fan and would much rather that Hurts is either very good this year, or very bad, than that he is just-about-good-enough-to-not-quite-justify-taking-a-QB.

33 Be careful what you wish for

One of the best lines from a FO writer (I forget who) said that the average 1st round pick QB is Mark Sanchez, the average second round pick QB is Gino Smith.

For bad teams, the grass looks greener on the other side, and if Hurts is bad, you are much much more likely to get Mark Sanchez and the endless list of Cleveland QB scrubs than a superstar.

I used a small sample size yes, it was too cumbersome to add in the 2-14 teams.  If you are 2-14 you stink (maybe you had bad luck and should have been 4-12 and 5-11.  There are just too many holes to fill with teams that are in the bottom 5%  This is not baseball, you do not get to rebuild in 5 years, because if you are lucky enough/smart enough to get that star QB, you must then pay him $40M a year, and get to dump many of those guys that helped you rebuild toward respectability.

Most teams do not take the smart approach that Miami did, stockpiling a massive number of draft picks to fill a massive amount of holes.

Other than Peyton Manning, the QB's with the most success are not the top picks.  Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Wilson, Roethlisberger.  My point is that if the team is horrific, there is unlikely to be a QB savior.  History shows that Trey Lance and Mac Jones have the best chance of succeeding since the 49ers and Patriots are already competent teams, unlike Jacksonville and the Jets.  Justin Fields falls right in the middle.  Jacksonville and the Jets are likely to be bad 2-3 years from now.  I'll bet on SF, NE and Chi over Jacksonville and the Jets.

The idea that you can not get a QB is also a fallacy. Everyone is on the clock, you can always move up if you want, it is just how much of a price do you want to pay.  If WFT wanted Mac Jones, they should have traded up 5 spots.  I like them winging it for a year with Ryan Fitzpatrick, he is another mediocre QB that has a crack at making a playoff run.  The Giants traded up 5 spots to get a Guard ha ha.  Oh never mind, they drafted a RB with the number 2 pick in the draft.

 

 

34 But it is clear that you can…

But it is clear that you can go from bad team to very strong team very quickly

Of course you can - if you replace the entire part of the team that was bad! The Colts drafting Manning is a horrible example - yeah, sure, lucking into the #1 pick overall when literally the most transcendent QB of a generation (which the Colts didn't know he would be) shows up is a great way to rebuild your team.

But look at your other example. They didn't just draft Luck and suddenly everything was back to normal. Head coaching change, front office change, literally the entire organization was upended. Luck wasn't the second coming of Manning!

Your other examples? Mostly the same. Newton (new coaching staff) Falcons (new coaching staff + new GM). And Griffin's a bad example: they weren't that bad beforehand, and weren't that good his first season.

This is the entire point. If Hurts is terrible and the Eagles are awful, that doesn't imply that the Eagles can just try again and golly gee, they'll get it right this time! It implies they're a bad team - and unless they gut the front office/coaching staff/etc. they'll just go ahead and keep being bad.

Now, in my case, I actually do think the Eagles front office is terrible (no opinion on the coaching staff) so in some sense I do hope Hurts is godawful - but I only hope that because I'm hoping it'll cause turnover in the scouting/front office department. If Hurts is godawful and Roseman sticks around, that's like, a ludicrously worst case scenario. Heck, even if Hurts is very good I'm not super happy because they won't be a long-term good team anyway.

35 I've no real idea what your…

I've no real idea what your point is now. It seems to be that if something is not very good, you should change it. Which seems like pretty sensible reasoning but very much at odds with characterising someone like Trubisky as "good value".

The idea that if Hurts is bad it means the rest of Eagles are a bad team (and presumably if he's good they're good team) is baffling. It's possible to have a bad QB with a good rest-of-roster, and vice versa.

But the key point is, and remains, if your QB is below average you have almost no chance to go deep in the modern NFL. Of course changing him is a roll of the dice - but sticking with a Trubisky type is in no way good value.

36 Which seems like pretty…

Which seems like pretty sensible reasoning but very much at odds with characterising someone like Trubisky as "good value".

Yeah, I get that you don't understand saying that Trubisky was good value. Don't know how else to explain it. He was good enough that they didn't have to churn through QB trash in order to get reasonable QB play while waiting for a better opportunity to come along, while waiting to see if he improved. Don't know why you don't see that as valuable. Being able to be patient while saving money is valuable. Why is this a complicated idea?

Take the Broncos, for instance. Drafted Paxton Lynch after Manning retired, who was awful. He was utterly unplayable. They had to go with Siemian instead of him, but you can't just keep playing a 7th round QB who's obviously not a viable QB. Broncos didn't get back into position to draft another QB until after 2017, but the 2017 QB draft class was underwhelming, so they went with Case Keenum, and ended up paying him $22 million. He was bad, but again, they weren't in a position to draft a QB again, and they end up going with Flacco at $18M.

That's $40M to make up for the fact that Paxton Lynch was a terrible pick.

Just because your QB sucks doesn't mean you're going to suck enough as a team to get a high enough pick to get the QB you want. The 'value' that a mediocre QB gives you is allowing you to be patient as to when you have to get your next QB while still allowing for the possibility that he'll continue to improve.

but sticking with a Trubisky type is in no way good value.

Versus replacing him with Foles? How did that make any sense whatsoever? It just cost them like $20+M and netted them exactly the same result with no chance that Foles would suddenly become an A+ starter.

39 And to be clear, the 1-15…

And to be clear, the 1-15 was the first year of the Jerry Jones/Jimmy Johnson era. Again, that turnaround wasn't due to drafting Aikman. It was due to a massive organizational change. The Cowboys went from being a middle-tier team at the end of Landry's coaching career to a top team - but only with wholescale organizational change.

The Lions went from a god-awful disaster pre-Stafford to a below-average team with Stafford, and Stafford at 33 still netted the Lions multiple first round picks in a trade. Bad teams are bad because of way more reasons than a QB, and a team that's good can't just choose to be awful enough to pick high in the draft.

44 Great argument. The entire …

Great argument. The entire "tank so you get a really great QB," has always struck me as extremely poorly thought out. First of all, many years there just isn't a great QB no matter where you pick. Second, you can always pull an Andy Reid and trade up to get your guy, in his case Mahomes. 

I mean teams trade up to take QBs all the time, including both the 9ers and the Bears in this draft alone. I don't get it, should the Bears have intentionally lost more games last year just so they didn't have to trade up to get Fields? 

It is obviously true that it can be a good strategy to do what the Jags did, and trade off all expensive talent by punting on a year when you have no hope of winning anything. That's very much different from intentionally losing just to see some team trade ahead of you and get the QB you want.

Mediocre QBs, as you mentioned, have taken teams to superbowls and won them just in the past 20 years. More often than people would think. A downright bad QB, Trubisky, goes 12-4 on a team with a dominant defense, which makes it really hard to somehow go 4-12 or worse. And as I already mentioned, that doesn't even guarantee you anything.

32 I don't think it is, because…

I don't think it is, because I don't think 7 wins really feels any better than 4 wins - the NFL is all about being a contender. Most fans would rather alternate 3-13 with 13-3, than constantly go 8-8. 

I don't think this is true. I think a 3-13 season hurts attendance, both that year and going forward much more than a 13-3 season helps it.

The biggest problem is a 3-13 team tends to have a bunch of holes. The Jets and Jaguars likely need 2-3 additional drafts just to get a mediocre squad, let alone a good one. Maybe a bunch of players develop quicker than expected and/or they get some good cheap FAs, but that's not that likely. After all, this isn't the first such rodeo for either team.

40 The team profit's separate…

The team profit's separate from the equity growth, and that's very reputation/performance/attendance dependent. The Eagles valuation, for instance, barely budged from 2020-2021 because of the drop in fan interest/value, whereas most NFL teams jumped around 7-10% (which, to be honest, is surprising, given the pandemic but it is what it is). That effective loss is actually probably equal to or larger than the team's operating profits for a typical year.

46 You mean the 25th and 26th…

You mean the 25th and 26th ranked franchises in team valuation? Yeah, clearly a perennially losing team in a market larger than Pittsburgh worth more than half a billion less is unaffected by their perennially losing status. And the Browns market value's increased a lot in the past few years due to Mayfield and the team's apparent turnaround.

The correlation between winning percentage and team valuation is quite significant considering the other factors (market size) involved. Basically an average increase of 1 win each year is worth something like $50M.

47 Of course winning helps

Didnt say otherwise. But you think their losing money? Despite all the losing they still churn out money. And thank you for pointing out 1 (!) playoff appearance in how long for Cleveland changes 2 decades of losing (maybe you're right...it was the high drafted QBs doing...hmm)

48 They're losing money…

They're losing money relative to other teams in the league. If you've got an asset that's not growing as fast as similar assets that other people have, you're effectively losing money. In some people's case it might be actually losing money since investors may have put leveraged money in expecting a certain level of growth.

This is rich-people land. Actual money isn't always as important as growth projections and meeting them.

41 Just a footnote on the Ravens

Just a footnote on the Ravens 5-11 season: that was the year Flacco got hurt, and Suggs, and some of the corners, and some WRs, and their starting RB – it seemed damn near every position group got hammered.

42 Yeah, isn't it weird that…

Yeah, isn't it weird that the only real "bad" years that these mediocre QBs have is when they and a bunch of players get hurt.

Will never understand people thinking that you wouldn't want to keep a guy like Flacco or Eli. As if you could just discard them for all those Hall of Fame QBs that apparently show up every year. Good teams stay good by being patient and planning enough to avoid being forced into a bad decision.

45 It's just so bizarre seeing…

It's just so bizarre seeing people imply:

1) There exists at least one HOF QB in every draft.

2) You can't trade up to get him.

3) Losing intentionally gets you this QB.

4) The downsides of being a trash organization that loses constantly is minor.

3 NFL quarterbacks who started…

In reply to by LondonMonarch

NFL quarterbacks who started games from last season who were drafted after the first round: Brandon Allen (actually a back-up), Andy Dalton (would have been a starter until Fields fell to 11), Drew Lock (Bridgewater, 1st rounder, will replace him), Mike Glennon (now a back-up), Chad Henne (actually a back-up, but he did save them in the playoffs), Derek Carr (an actual starter),  John Wofford (back-up), Kirk Cousins , Drew Brees (technically a 2nd rounder, except that 32 would be in the 1st round now), Jalen Hurts (starting this year), Mason Rudolph (back-up), C.J. Beathard (back-up), Russell Wilson and Tom Brady.   I guess throw Garoppolo on there too.

I was going by who started the last regular season game; surprised how many there were.  

5 I guess there's no…

I guess there's no discussion page for Day 3 of the draft? I knew Tanier wasn't posting - he must be exhausted after the past two days; that's a hard slog, especially Rounds 2 & 3 - but is there a open discussion page I'm missing?

7 Article

We had a little discussion about other sports and tennis recently on an Extra Point. In case anyone is interested, here is an article about Mac Jones, his tennis background, and how tennis influences him: https://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2021/04/called-mcenroe-alabama-tennis-lover-mac-jones-ready-nfl/93807/

18 Thanks for the link

In reply to by Mike Y

I hadn't thought about it, but the point about footwork is a good one. In both tennis and QBing you have to react quickly, move around, and maintain good balance as you hit your shot/make your throw. 

8 Kudos to the Rams

for drafting the lightest player...ever? At least the lightest that high. Like Tutu too.