Extend Cousins or ... ?

I guess I would be curious if they paid much attention to these guys pre-draft... but to be fair, weren't all those picks the results of trades? Cine would have been a reach at 13 last season, and likely wouldn't have been there at #2... so there wouldn't have been much speculation there as an example. Ingram I know was widely considered an overdraft, so that's possibly a miss even with the trade up. 

But in all seriousness, I think QB calls this draft are natural given Cousins is a lame duck. That's logical speculation, and the Vikings are evaluating some, which they should be. 

I agree with this logic, which is why I think Hooker ends up a late 3rd/4th round pick. It happened last year with teams waiting on Willis, Ridder, and Corral until the 3rd round... and Howell somehow made it to the 5th. Of course, this same logic led teams to pass on Hurts and the Eagles got him as a bargain at the bottom of the 2nd.

I'd be down for Hooker in the 4th as a cheap backup QB, if they think he can be ready to compete with Mullens right away. If there's nobody better on the board available, that is. The Patriots took Zappe in the 4th last year and he looked solid, now they have a guy to push Jones for the next 3 years on the cheap.

You kidding right?  You don't need even data for this...



If one recent example isn't enough a quick look at trade up also includes: 
The Eagles won a Super Bowl after a trade up for Wentz in his 1 good season. 
The Rams traded up for Goff to appear in one.  
The Giants also won 2 after a trade up for Eli Manning. 
The Ravens traded up for Flacco and won one (not really because of Flacco, but the assets used didn't hold them back)

Trade ups are also how the Bills got Allen, Ravens got Lamar and Texans got Watson (pre wiener-thing that was a pretty good deal).  Yeah, there are some failed trade ups, but with a 1st round success rate of 60%ish, that's true of trades ups, trade downs or stick and picks.  

Not going to quote your full post, but how much of this is a failure to develop? Brady doesn't last in the NFL on a lot of teams. Plenty of those great 1st round prospects probably fail on some teams and succeed on others. Patience is an issue in some cases, see Brees as an example, whom SD gave up on way too early.

Setting them up to succeed is another that I think is massively underrated by just about every team. Carolina, for instance, just mortgaged the future to get the 1 overall pick. Their line sucks (or at least it did in what I saw of it last year). They traded away their best WR as well to get said pick. They traded an elite RB this past season too. AT was signed to be one of their top WRs and I know they signed another WR too, but even as a #2 at his age, that shouldn't excite you. He's not a bad signing, but whomever they drafted is going to have the deck stacked against them in what is going to be a critical time for development, and with no second rounder and no first or second next year, they won't be getting much from the draft next season either. I haven't followed what they've done to shore up their OL, but that scream's recipe for disaster. Said QB will get pushed into the starting spot no later than week 6 and will likely be running for his life instead of being put in the best position to develop his passing skills, which is what is needed to be a successful passer in the NFL... because he's going to have to shed the run first instinct. This is going to be hard to do when he's used to having a lot more time in college and generally easier windows to throw into.

To me, what I just described, is probably the biggest problem to QB development/transition in the NFL. There isn't a metric to quantify as to who can make that type of transition. Add to it the longer season and the bigger/stronger defenders who inflict more physical damage on hits, and well, you get the idea. I would argue that once you hit a certain talent threshold/level of skills, it probably doesn't matter much, because development is the main ingredient combined with a coach's ability to put a player/team in position to succeed. Yes, there's a certain level of maturity that goes with it too. Jamarcus Russel, for instance, was given a blank playbook and then asked how he was coming along learning it... That's an experiment you shouldn't have to run after you walk to the podium. That's certainly another factor. That's my concern for a guy like Fields. They slapped him into a system that didn't fit his strengths and only changed the system after the bye. Suddenly he started to flourish. He still has a ways to go, but the designed runs kept the defenses honest and allowed him to do some passing, and I was honestly a bit surprised what I saw out of him with the deep ball project. Now the Bears are doing what they should have done last year and strengthening his line and giving him WR talent. We'll see if they adjusted soon enough, but it's not hard to look at the results and notice the difference yet at the same time wonder why they didn't take a common sense approach from day one... and most of the NFL doesn't do that.

That's my issue with the moveupper philosophy. I'm not against it if it puts you in the right position, but it tends to generate a lot of excitement and inevitably leads to a lot of disappointment, especially if aren't capable of developing a solid plan for your new toy or executing on it.

But it didn’t play out because he took a beating being used as a RB with benefits. This is the reality with the desire to both put more responsibility on productivity to the QB position and give them guaranteed, huge contracts. When they are exposed to the big hit they often lose the one thing they were brought in for.

Culpepper, Wentz, RG3, Newton, Jackson… the list is much more extensive of QBs who had a shortened career for obvious reasons than it is for those who had long, productive careers.

Jackson, as in Lamar? Since when has his career been shortened by injury, or did you just come back from time traveling to 2030?

Wentz is more in the middle, he had average mobility… yet the Eagles built off his MVP-like year and won a SB. I’d sign up for that.

So are you recommending teams don’t draft Anthony Richardson and instead opt for the likes of Tanner McKee (a true pocket passer), because Richardson is more likely not to be starting when he’s 32? Or just pay the likes of Cousins, Carr, and Tannehill big money instead of drafting a QB?