QB thread

[adam]

3 minutes ago, Mongo3451 said:

And if Fields balls out, you can trade the young gun.

I don't like this one as much.  It just seems like a dick move.  I just see the team saying, ah hell nah...

Yep, the first one is probably a better solution and hedges better with the rookie deals. 

The 2nd one is like the Dalton/Glennon debacles that never worked out. However, someone like Browning would not slot in above Fields. However, if he outplayed him in the offseason or preseason, then he would deserve to move up. 

 

Drafting one, trading Fields; drafting one, keeping Fields, or keeping Fields without drafting one are the most 3 likely scenarios. 

[Stinger226]

When I say draft a QB, I'm not referring in the first round, that would say you want to move on from Fields. I think we trade back with the top pick and get a 2nd rounder to consider one prospect that clears the first round run on QBs. There could be a later pick that may have upside. Pratt, Ward, Milton, Sanders, a lot of other choices. When Purdy, Browning look like NFL QBs and people like Cousins, Hurts , Prescott, Wilson , Carr were not drafted in the first round, it's a possibility.

[adam]

1 hour ago, Stinger226 said:

When I say draft a QB, I'm not referring in the first round, that would say you want to move on from Fields. I think we trade back with the top pick and get a 2nd rounder to consider one prospect that clears the first round run on QBs. There could be a later pick that may have upside. Pratt, Ward, Milton, Sanders, a lot of other choices. When Purdy, Browning look like NFL QBs and people like Cousins, Hurts , Prescott, Wilson , Carr were not drafted in the first round, it's a possibility.

Yeah, that makes sense. Trading back is always beneficial if you can get more bang for your buck. I wouldn't mind a 2nd round QB, but it is nice having the 5th year option, though more teams are locking QBs up before then, thus killing the benefit.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

2 hours ago, Stinger226 said:

When I say draft a QB, I'm not referring in the first round, that would say you want to move on from Fields. I think we trade back with the top pick and get a 2nd rounder to consider one prospect that clears the first round run on QBs. There could be a later pick that may have upside. Pratt, Ward, Milton, Sanders, a lot of other choices. When Purdy, Browning look like NFL QBs and people like Cousins, Hurts , Prescott, Wilson , Carr were not drafted in the first round, it's a possibility.

Besides that, if you find a decent QB in later rounds and Fields doesn't turn out to be the option for us, one of the teams that drafted the next round of "can't miss" QB prospects in the first round will be looking for a good replacement/backup and Justin will be a valuable trading piece.  (Before you get excited PHX, I'm not off the Fields' bandwagon yet...lol).

[BearFan PHX]

22 minutes ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

(Before you get excited PHX, I'm not off the Fields' bandwagon yet...lol).

LOL

I just wonder how likely it is to find a franchise QB in later rounds? It feels more like a gesture to justify not spending one of the top two picks on a QB?

For me, I think the QBs Im interested in will be gone by the middle of the first round.

I would think about taking MHJr with the #1 overall, and a QB with the second first rounder. I know it means no trade down for a huge haul, but if it means a franchise QB and a dominant WR, that's still a pretty good haul.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

1 hour ago, BearFan PHX said:

but if it means a franchise QB

I think the ‘IF’ is a pretty big one in this instance. For many, the idea of getting more ‘bang for your buck’ outweighs the uncertainty of drafting a QB in the 1st round and knowing ‘he’s the one’.  We did it with our last two and it didn’t work (“so far”). 

[BearFan PHX]

2 hours ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

I think the ‘IF’ is a pretty big one in this instance. For many, the idea of getting more ‘bang for your buck’ outweighs the uncertainty of drafting a QB in the 1st round and knowing ‘he’s the one’.  We did it with our last two and it didn’t work (“so far”). 

drafting a QB is always a risk, but for sure youre MUCH MUCH less likely to find a franchise QB after the first round?

[adam]

3 hours ago, BearFan PHX said:

drafting a QB is always a risk, but for sure youre MUCH MUCH less likely to find a franchise QB after the first round?

If you look at the top QBs from this season, and some other very young QBs who are looking the part, there are 10/14 from the 1st round, Hurts from the 2nd, 2x from the 4th, and Purdy. I think Purdy is an anomaly and very dependent on Shanahan and that team as a whole. I doubt he looks half as good on the Bears from 2022. 

Even so, you are 3 times as likely to get a QB in the 1st than all other rounds combined. Considering rounds 3-7 have more than 32 picks, that ratio is even larger. 

Prescott - 4th 
Allen - 1st
Mahomes - 1st
Herbert - 1st
Cousins - 4th
Tua - 1st
Hurts - 2nd
Goff - 1st  
Stafford - 1st
Trubisky - 1st
Jackson - 1st
Burrow - 1st
--------------
Purdy - 7th
Stroud - 1st
Lawrence - 1st

If you go a step further, 9 out of 10 were top 10 (Jackson was the only one not in top 10), 6 were top 5, 5 were top 2, and 4 were #1 picks. So you are just as likely to hit on a franchise QB at #1 than you are in every pick from the 2nd to 7th rounds combined (on average). So 1/1 vs 1/229. That's pretty wild. 

[DABEARSDABOMB]

43 minutes ago, adam said:

If you look at the top QBs from this season, and some other very young QBs who are looking the part, there are 10/14 from the 1st round, Hurts from the 2nd, 2x from the 4th, and Purdy. I think Purdy is an anomaly and very dependent on Shanahan and that team as a whole. I doubt he looks half as good on the Bears from 2022. 

Even so, you are 3 times as likely to get a QB in the 1st than all other rounds combined. Considering rounds 3-7 have more than 32 picks, that ratio is even larger. 

Prescott - 4th 
Allen - 1st
Mahomes - 1st
Herbert - 1st
Cousins - 4th
Tua - 1st
Hurts - 2nd
Goff - 1st  
Stafford - 1st
Trubisky - 1st
Jackson - 1st
Burrow - 1st
--------------
Purdy - 7th
Stroud - 1st
Lawrence - 1st

If you go a step further, 9 out of 10 were top 10 (Jackson was the only one not in top 10), 6 were top 5, 5 were top 2, and 4 were #1 picks. So you are just as likely to hit on a franchise QB at #1 than you are in every pick from the 2nd to 7th rounds combined (on average). So 1/1 vs 1/229. That's pretty wild. 

Why is Trubisky on this list? 

[adam]

41 minutes ago, DABEARSDABOMB said:

Why is Trubisky on this list? 

I was joking. I didn't include him in the numbers.

[Stinger226]

2 hours ago, adam said:

If you look at the top QBs from this season, and some other very young QBs who are looking the part, there are 10/14 from the 1st round, Hurts from the 2nd, 2x from the 4th, and Purdy. I think Purdy is an anomaly and very dependent on Shanahan and that team as a whole. I doubt he looks half as good on the Bears from 2022. 

Even so, you are 3 times as likely to get a QB in the 1st than all other rounds combined. Considering rounds 3-7 have more than 32 picks, that ratio is even larger. 

Prescott - 4th 
Allen - 1st
Mahomes - 1st
Herbert - 1st
Cousins - 4th
Tua - 1st
Hurts - 2nd
Goff - 1st  
Stafford - 1st
Trubisky - 1st
Jackson - 1st
Burrow - 1st
--------------
Purdy - 7th
Stroud - 1st
Lawrence - 1st

If you go a step further, 9 out of 10 were top 10 (Jackson was the only one not in top 10), 6 were top 5, 5 were top 2, and 4 were #1 picks. So you are just as likely to hit on a franchise QB at #1 than you are in every pick from the 2nd to 7th rounds combined (on average). So 1/1 vs 1/229. That's pretty wild. 

Did you find a list of first round picks that failed? I'll try to find a list. 

[BearFan PHX]

That list certainly proves the point that top 10 QBs are MUCH more likely to be franchise QBs than any others.

And Im not sure thats even the cleanest way to measure it?

I think what you do is take the number of QBs drafted in each round and then find the percentage that become franchise QBs. You can also see who becomes a productive starter.

Then you'll see that while there are plenty of busts in the first round, they overwhelm the stats for each subsequent round.

Here's a quote from a 30 year study from Harvard about this. Admittedly the study is from 2011, but it tracked 30 years of draft and performance data. So it's a start anyway.

It concludes:
60% of number one pick QBs become elite (27% become middle of the pack, only 13% bust)
39% first round QBs become elite (22% become middle of the pack, 39% bust)
19% second round QBs become elite
6% third round QBs become elite

That's about the coin flip boom or bust (39%/22%/39%) we expect from first round QBs. It's hard to know what you're getting.

But it becomes much much worse after the first round, where less than 1 in 5 become elite.

Here's from the Harvard study

"Looking back on the last thirty years of the draft, it turns out that 39% of QBs taken in the first round became “elite” QBs (4,000 season passing yards, 60% completion percentage, a certain “put-the-team-on-my-back”-itude) while 39% become “busts”; the remaining 22% become middle-of-the-pack players. In fact, the first pick is the best time to take a QB: nine out of the fifteen QBs selected first overall in the past thirty years have become elite while only two have turned into busts. After the first round, the chances of selecting an elite quarterback plummet to 19% in the second, 6% in the third, and dwindle to 1% in the seventh round. Contrary to what many believe, the earlier you select a QB, the better the odds that he is actually good.

Drafting an elite quarterback pays immediate dividends, as average win percentage rises from 41% to 52% in two years. It takes teams, on average, eight years to reach 0.500 after drafting a bust QB. Drafting a quarterback is a necessary gamble that most teams lose, but they must try anyway in hopes of landing a player who will transform their franchise."

Basically these two things are true:

1) You need an elite QB to win Super Bowls

2) You're 60% likely to get one with the first pick overall and it goes down quickly from there, to 39% for the rest of the first round, only 19% in the second round dropping below 6% lower than that.

Look at the QBs going to the playoffs this year. Most will be first rounders, most will be top 10 picks.

As Adam just showed, more than 75% of the top QBs were first rounders. 90% of those were top 10 picks. I mean this isnt rocket science.

To those who say that former players know what they are talking about, consider that current GMs know even more about the players in the draft. They may bust first round QB picks 4 out of 10 times, but they win with their top pick QBs a LOT more, like 3 to 1 over all other rounds.

You're not gonna find a QB to take you to the Super Bowl in the 2nd round or later. It's a dream. 4 to 1 against, and then it plummets to 19 to 1 after that.

[adam]

8 hours ago, Stinger226 said:

Did you find a list of first round picks that failed? I'll try to find a list. 

There are a few ways to cut the data. The way I did it was franchise QBs in the 1st vs franchise QBs everywhere else.

You can also go 1st round pick QB hits / first round QB overall picks.

and you can do it your way: 1st round QB failures / all other round QB failures

I will look into it, but I believe the ratio will be similar. There were 14 QBs drafted in 2023. Stroud currently looks like the only real deal. So 1/3 chance vs 0/11 chance. Going back to Fields year, you could say at this time it is 1/5 in the first (TLaw only), and 0/5 everywhere else. Fields still has a chance, and would bump the success rate up significantly.

Ultimately, the likelihood of getting a franchise QB in the first, and in the top 5 is exponentially higher. However, in order to have a large enough sample size, you probably have to do a 10 year review. 

Looking at just the 2 years I did, it was 1/4 chance in the 1st, and 0/16 chance outside of the first just using that data set.

Knowing Purdy is in 2022, if I add that year into the numbers, it goes to 2/9 (22.2%) for the first round (Pickett added), and to 1/24 (4.2%) outside of the 1st for the last 3 years. 

Now to get failures, you just flip the data. So in the first there is a 77.8% failure rate, for all other rounds, there is a 95.8% failure rate. I didn't include UDFAs, but their failure rate is even higher.

[Stinger226]

26 minutes ago, adam said:

There are a few ways to cut the data. The way I did it was franchise QBs in the 1st vs franchise QBs everywhere else.

You can also go 1st round pick QB hits / first round QB overall picks.

and you can do it your way: 1st round QB failures / all other round QB failures

I will look into it, but I believe the ratio will be similar. There were 14 QBs drafted in 2023. Stroud currently looks like the only real deal. So 1/3 chance vs 0/11 chance. Going back to Fields year, you could say at this time it is 1/5 in the first (TLaw only), and 0/5 everywhere else. Fields still has a chance, and would bump the success rate up significantly.

Ultimately, the likelihood of getting a franchise QB in the first, and in the top 5 is exponentially higher. However, in order to have a large enough sample size, you probably have to do a 10 year review. 

Looking at just the 2 years I did, it was 1/4 chance in the 1st, and 0/16 chance outside of the first just using that data set.

Knowing Purdy is in 2022, if I add that year into the numbers, it goes to 2/9 (22.2%) for the first round (Pickett added), and to 1/24 (4.2%) outside of the 1st for the last 3 years. 

Now to get failures, you just flip the data. So in the first there is a 77.8% failure rate, for all other rounds, there is a 95.8% failure rate. I didn't include UDFAs, but their failure rate is even higher.

Winning is the ultimate measure of success and many things figure in to that scenario. Good coaching, team talent, and a good QB come into to play. 

The top 8 teams in the league right now

starting QBs. 

Phil- pick 53

Balt-pick 32

Dallas- pick 135

Detriot-pick 1

Miami- pick 5

SF-pick 232

Jaguars-pick 1

KC-pick 10

Of these QBs only 2 were #1, 3 more were first round, 6 were 32 or later. Goff is not considered elite, Lawrence has yet to be given that status. You can find stats to make any point you want. More QBs are picked high because of the nature of the position , other rounds are never taken with the concept of being elite. 

If we go by the success rate of first round QBs then we probably should keep Fields, he was pick # 11. We should also pick a QB with one of our first round picks. Why not do both?

 

[adam]

48 minutes ago, Stinger226 said:

Winning is the ultimate measure of success and many things figure in to that scenario. Good coaching, team talent, and a good QB come into to play. 

The top 8 teams in the league right now

starting QBs. 

Phil- pick 53

Balt-pick 32

Dallas- pick 135

Detriot-pick 1

Miami- pick 5

SF-pick 232

Jaguars-pick 1

KC-pick 10

Of these QBs only 2 were #1, 3 more were first round, 6 were 32 or later. Goff is not considered elite, Lawrence has yet to be given that status. You can find stats to make any point you want. More QBs are picked high because of the nature of the position , other rounds are never taken with the concept of being elite. 

If we go by the success rate of first round QBs then we probably should keep Fields, he was pick # 11. We should also pick a QB with one of our first round picks. Why not do both?

Goff is 8th in QB Rating, 10th in QBR, 4th in passing yards, 20 TD, to 8 INT. That seems like top 10 to me.  I personally don't think he is, but his numbers say otherwise. 

Now those are the top teams, but there are some really good QBs on bad teams, Allen, Herbert, Stafford, would all fit that category.

At the end of the day, you need great QBs, great teams, coaches, and organizations. The Bears are not there yet, but they seem to be trending in the right direction, and after the most losses the team has ever experienced in a 2 year window, getting some additional wins down the stretch should be seen as a success.

If you are under 40, you didn't even get to experience the 85 team, and you have seen more losing than winning, so we need to celebrate the wins when they come. 

I am hoping and praying, holding crystals in both hands with incense lit that the Bears can win out, Justin balls out and the entire narrative gets flipped.

[Stinger226]

45 minutes ago, adam said:

Goff is 8th in QB Rating, 10th in QBR, 4th in passing yards, 20 TD, to 8 INT. That seems like top 10 to me.  I personally don't think he is, but his numbers say otherwise. 

Now those are the top teams, but there are some really good QBs on bad teams, Allen, Herbert, Stafford, would all fit that category.

At the end of the day, you need great QBs, great teams, coaches, and organizations. The Bears are not there yet, but they seem to be trending in the right direction, and after the most losses the team has ever experienced in a 2 year window, getting some additional wins down the stretch should be seen as a success.

If you are under 40, you didn't even get to experience the 85 team, and you have seen more losing than winning, so we need to celebrate the wins when they come. 

I am hoping and praying, holding crystals in both hands with incense lit that the Bears can win out, Justin balls out and the entire narrative gets flipped.

From year to year, different QBs have good and bad years. Goff, Cousins, Stafford, Prescott, Murray,  are 2 nd tier QBs that have had good years. 1 st tier for now are Mahomes Allen, Herbert, Jackson are e!ite  now. Hurts, Lawrence, Tua are trending that way but not there yet. Who did I miss?

[Alaskan Grizzly]

11 hours ago, BearFan PHX said:

As Adam just showed, more than 75% of the top QBs were first rounders. 90% of those were top 10 picks. I mean this isnt rocket science.

You're not gonna find a QB to take you to the Super Bowl in the 2nd round or later. It's a dream. 4 to 1 against, and then it plummets to 19 to 1 after that.

First I'd like to acknowledge that years ago I had this very similar discussion/argument with Jason (mine was of the opinion skill players deserve top picks and he did not - he thought oline). Anyhow I now find myself either a hypocrite or in one of those ironic situations that illustrates how your opinion can evolve/devolve with age.  And because sometimes I like to play 'devil's advocate' I offer this...

My first point would be regarding the general 'you need a first round QB to win a Super Bowl.'  The last two QBs the Bears picked were 1st rounders.  So were they not the right ones or?  

Here's an illustration of how 'stats are what you make of them'.  Of the last 10 Super Bowl winning teams only 4 of their QBs were 1st round picks (that's 40%).  One of those, Joe Flacco, probably wouldn't be considered by most as "elite".  Two of them, Manning and Stafford were not playing for the team that originally drafted when they won the SB in that time.  Perhaps the elitist of the elite, Brady who won 4 SBs in that time, was drafted in the 6th round AND won it with two separate teams.  

To extrapolate or "bend" the stats a bit more, two of the top NFC teams right now have QBs that were not drafted in the first round.  Purdy (#262 overall) and Hurts (#53 overall).  

And an interesting tidbit I heard this morning from the LeBetard/Stugotz show.  Evidently the NFL phased out the Wonderlic test last year and replaced it with a new test called the "S2" test.  As we know, the Wonderlic and now S2 tests measure "...the cognitive ability and problem-solving aptitude of prospective employees." They were illustrating how this type of test doesn't always accurately depict how a QB will fare in the NFL and can be a bit confounding when you measure the results.  IE:  both Purdy and Bryce Young aced the test where CJ Stroud did not.  

[Lucky Luciano]

2 hours ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

My first point would be regarding the general 'you need a first round QB to win a Super Bowl.'  The last two QBs the Bears picked were 1st rounders.  So were they not the right ones or?  

Here's an illustration of how 'stats are what you make of them'.  Of the last 10 Super Bowl winning teams only 4 of their QBs were 1st round picks (that's 40%).  One of those, Joe Flacco, probably wouldn't be considered by most as "elite".  Two of them, Manning and Stafford were not playing for the team that originally drafted when they won the SB in that time.  Perhaps the elitist of the elite, Brady who won 4 SBs in that time, was drafted in the 6th round AND won it with two separate teams.  

To extrapolate or "bend" the stats a bit more, two of the top NFC teams right now have QBs that were not drafted in the first round.  Purdy (#262 overall) and Hurts (#53 overall). 

this is my take.... i did a lot of research over 10 years ago on the relationship to elite players/qb's and it came up real similar to phx's research.

most sb winning teams without elite or at the least VERY GOOD + qb's usually do not enjoy multiple superbowls. it's a one and done. look at the teams with multiple superbowl appearances and you will find (i am assuming this) they had the quality qb to get them there.

there are a number of factors that come into play for superbowl qb's.

1. the qb's FIRST have to get their teams there. without that elite qb are you going to win the division to even get in the running for a championship game consistently? or at worst be eligible for the wildcard spots?

2. it also adds up to what seed you are going to fall under. do you have any bye weeks in the playoffs. are you playing home games? the strength of the teams you open against before the championship game. these are all very important. so it's not just the sb winner but the teams that are always in the hunt to get there.

3. the nfl cap and rules have changed so much over the past 2 or 3 decades in favor of offense that it just isn't feasible to rely on a defense more than once to even get you there.

so yes, in my opinion, it is critical to have that top tier qb to even consistently give your franchise an edge to attain a playoff berth.

[BearFan PHX]

5 minutes ago, Lucky Luciano said:

so yes, in my opinion, it is critical to have that top tier qb to even consistently give your franchise an edge to attain a playoff berth.

of course. It's funny we are even discussing it. And I think pretty much everyone is agreeing.

I mean there's always that one holdout that thinks 2+2=5. but what are you gonna do?

[Stinger226]

7 minutes ago, Lucky Luciano said:

this is my take.... i did a lot of research over 10 years ago on the relationship to elite players/qb's and it came up real similar to phx's research.

most sb winning teams without elite or at the least VERY GOOD + qb's usually do not enjoy multiple superbowls. it's a one and done. look at the teams with multiple superbowl appearances and you will find (i am assuming this) they had the quality qb to get them there.

there are a number of factors that come into play for superbowl qb's.

1. the qb's FIRST have to get their teams there. without that elite qb are you going to win the division to even get in the running for a championship game consistently? or at worst be eligible for the wildcard spots?

2. it also adds up to what seed you are going to fall under. do you have any bye weeks in the playoffs. are you playing home games? the strength of the teams you open against before the championship game. these are all very important. so it's not just the sb winner but the teams that are always in the hunt to get there.

3. the nfl cap and rules have changed so much over the past 2 or 3 decades in favor of offense that it just isn't feasible to rely on a defense more than once to even get you there.

so yes, in my opinion, it is critical to have that top tier qb to even consistently give your franchise an edge to attain a playoff berth.

Lots of factors go into teams that win SBs. 2023 SB, great QB, great coach, above average talent. 

                                                          2022 SB, good QB, great coach, above average talent. 

Anyone can say they won the SB because of a great QB but they also had great coaches and above average talent.  Herbert is considered an elite QB , has he even been to the playoffs? Josh Allen is considered an elite and hasnt been in a SB yet. We dont have a great coach and a roster being built. 

If you know an elite QB is in the draft then it would be dumb not to take him but who is he? Williams, Maye ? Zach Wilson and Trey Lance were top 5 picks, they arent even starting QBs in the league. 

#1 we have to get the one of the top 2 picks to even consider that.

#2 one of these QBs need to an elite, that's up to Poles to decide that

#3 we do not have an elite coach

#4 need a above average roster, we are not there yet. 

 I think Poles will make the right decisions, its just sports talk until the end of the season to have any realistic opinion on our future. 5 games away. If we lose 5 games, its set in stone what to do, but what if we win out, the conversation changes. 

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

54 minutes ago, BearFan PHX said:

of course. It's funny we are even discussing it. And I think pretty much everyone is agreeing.

I mean there's always that one holdout that thinks 2+2=5. but what are you gonna do?

I sincerely hope your comment wasn't meant to suggest your answer is the only answer and that anything contrary is fuzzy logic/math.  The stats I presented are what they are and in fact...factual.  

The idea that Brady is no doubt elite does not equal him being a 1st round pick...he wasn't.
The fact that Purdy's team is on the precipice of going to the Super Bowl this year is because he was deemed a 1st round talent. He wasn't.  

[BearFan PHX]

20 minutes ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

I sincerely hope your comment wasn't meant to suggest your answer is the only answer and that anything contrary is fuzzy logic/math.  The stats I presented are what they are and in fact...factual.  

The idea that Brady is no doubt elite does not equal him being a 1st round pick...he wasn't.
The fact that Purdy's team is on the precipice of going to the Super Bowl this year is because he was deemed a 1st round talent. He wasn't.  

My answer was statistical, not determinative. So it IS fact, but not without exceptions - the point being that those exceptions are quantifiably, and exceedingly rare?

The only fact Im claiming is that you are much much more likely to find a franchise or elite QB in the top 10 picks of the draft than anywhere else. It IS possible, but it is only 19% in the second round, 6% in the third round, and worse after that.

Also, Grizz I sent you a message...

[adam]

Regardless if we keep Fields and he becomes the franchise QB, or we draft one, I don't care where we draft him, as long as he becomes our franchise QB. Maybe we go the Washington route and draft one in the 2nd (after a trade back) and another in the 5th or 6th. Use the 1st rounders on WR, Edge, or DT, then use the 3rd and 4th on a Center or Safety. 

[Stinger226]

3 hours ago, adam said:

Regardless if we keep Fields and he becomes the franchise QB, or we draft one, I don't care where we draft him, as long as he becomes our franchise QB. Maybe we go the Washington route and draft one in the 2nd (after a trade back) and another in the 5th or 6th. Use the 1st rounders on WR, Edge, or DT, then use the 3rd and 4th on a Center or Safety. 

Totally agree .

[BearFan PHX]

3 hours ago, adam said:

Regardless if we keep Fields and he becomes the franchise QB, or we draft one, I don't care where we draft him, as long as he becomes our franchise QB. Maybe we go the Washington route and draft one in the 2nd (after a trade back) and another in the 5th or 6th. Use the 1st rounders on WR, Edge, or DT, then use the 3rd and 4th on a Center or Safety. 

well it would be best if the franchise QB was a walk on free agent and we didnt even need to spend a draft pick on him - and ditto for Hall of Famers at every position.

I hope we get lots of amazing players at bargain prices.

But in the real world, we kinda gotta be looking at a QB in the top 10 picks.