im not a scout, obviously
It's just too difficult to hit on a QB that isn't a generational type talent like Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck, and even many of the ones we thought were generational QBs busted. And you can't hide them once they're on your team. If they aren't good then they're either taking every snap and losing you games, or your prized pick is on the sideline. If it's any other position, you can work them in here and there and try to bring them along. You can get a DB some help or slide a tackle inside or play rush end on passing downs, and right off the bat they can at least contribute on ST. Not QB. It's all or nothing, boom or bust. Mostly bust, so no thanks with the top pick.
DL all the way for me. You play 4 or 5 of them at once with a few more in a rotation, and you just can't have too many good ones. They also get hurt a lot, so if you have 7 then you probably really only have 5 or maybe 6.
I consider hitting on a generational-type QB equal to hitting the mega million, hitting on a decent franchise QB however is feasible to me. I hold the opinion that a lot of QBs bust because they land on bad teams with bad coaching staffs and few players with talent on the team. I doubt GMs let fear of failing to pick correctly be a factor while drafting. Certainly the later you pick a QB the odds of hitting get greater. Teams that have a need at QB now or the very near future spend expensive draft capital to move up the draft to where the Seahawks are to have better odds of hitting.
That's fine because you're not drafting for the Seahawks ( neither am I). I'll ask you the same question I asked MrS . Did you tout Allen, Herbert Mahomes while they were in college? No? Well, there you have it.
Maybe we should start a thread grading QBs coming out of college for this draft and see how it works out.
I understand what you're getting at here, but that last sentence means you're compounding the risk. And since we already have a QB in place (notwithstanding looming free agency) who is functioning in our system at a high level, I don't see the sense in taking great risk on that same position with a highly coveted top 5 pick. It would only have a chance to make sense to me if Geno leaves *and* we are in love with whatever QB is there with our best pick. And if Geno does leave, why doesn't this front office just go out and find the next Geno instead of drafting the next Sam Darnold, Daniel Jones, or Josh Rosen?
The coaching staff as well.
If the Seahawks don't feel there is a franchise type, then I'd be OK selling the pick for a big haul. Preferably to a bad franchise and will include their next year's first.
You are risking more value but getting better odds, Surely you agree the later the round the longer the odds of hitting on a QB. I do not find using pennies to buy junk a good idea, but yeah you are only tossing away pennies but that doesn't solve the QB problem. Think it's unrealistic to expect PC and JS to hit on a QB when the odds are that bad. QB is not where you want to be frugal or cheap or scared. So even if the Seahawks think they have identified an unpolished gem I think the right move is to draft a QB early then draft that unpolished gem later for insurance.
I feel we should credit Pete and John for their QB savvy and think Pete knows how to bring a QB along and not put more on their plate than is wise.
A year ago, everyone was over the moon at the '23 QB draft class, but that seems backed off a bit now. I agree with you that Houston will be ahead of Denver's pick and will probably go with Stroud if they don't trade the pick (and if they do, that team presumably makes the move to get Stroud anyway). Let's say we are at 1.3 (from Denver) and didn't re-sign Geno or sign any of the other free agent QBs that are scheduled to be available. With Stroud off the board, what QB is worth that pick? I like Caleb Williams more than Bryce Young for sure, but he's only a true sophomore.
This is the direction we need to go. Maybe it's Will Anderson or a different name, but adding an "extra meeting" type talent on the DL is vital.
Were you pounding the table for us to take a QB this year with Denver's pick? If not, why not?
Nobody was, because it was considered a poor draft for QBs.
We still had a Top 10 pick and a (perceived) MUCH greater need at the most important position on the field. Could have had the "best" one in the draft. Your stance this year seems to be that we MUST take a QB with that (similar) pick, even though it won't be the "best" in the draft. Seems a bit of a rigid take... I'd go with the best player they can get based on how John & Pete grade them.
Maybe I am being rigid about it but for reasons:
Is it though? I don't think the pundits are in love with it right now as much as they were about a year ago. Houston is probably taking whatever QB is at the top of their board (most likely Stroud), and they are going to be picking ahead of us. When Stroud is gone, what QB do you think is worth our top pick?
