Overall best QBs by team

[Torc]

I still contend that Mirer was not a bust. Gave us a solid rookie season and a pick that was used (through further trades) to land both Shawn Springs and Walter Jones in the same draft.

I'd add that Stouffer wasn't a bust either, in my opinion. He showed some skill and moxie while backing up Krieg his rookie season, and I think continuing under Knox would have led him to success. Flores was completely unable to develop a QB for us even with three high first round picks spent on QBs (counting Stouffer). He did draft and develop Marc Wilson for the Raiders, but Wilson was able to sit behind Jim Plunkett for a while, he wasn't just thrown to the wolves.

In a world without Ken Behring, Stouffer doesn't have the starting job until he beats Krieg. But there's no Mirer, no McGwire in that story.

 

[Mick063]

I'd add that Stouffer wasn't a bust either, in my opinion. He showed some skill and moxie while backing up Krieg his rookie season, and I think continuing under Knox would have led him to success. Flores was completely unable to develop a QB for us even with three high first round picks spent on QBs (counting Stouffer). He did draft and develop Marc Wilson for the Raiders, but Wilson was able to sit behind Jim Plunkett for a while, he wasn't just thrown to the wolves.

In a world without Ken Behring, Stouffer doesn't have the starting job until he beats Krieg. But there's no Mirer, no McGwire in that story.

I just read a post declaring that Anderson or Carter "won't win you a Super Bowl" and two posts later, I read a post that says Stouffer and Myer were not busts.

Now which one of you first round quarterback lovers is going explain this? I mean following your collective logic, Stouffer and Myer will win you a Super Bowl. Isn't that where the goal posts have currently been moved to? If a player can't win you the Super Bowl, all by his lonesome, then he isn't worth adding to the roster? But apparently Stouffer and Myer are. Because they aren't busts. Never were busts. They couldn't' win us a Super Bowl but for revisionist history buffs, that doesn't really matter because in the end, they were NOT busts. Stan Gelbaugh? Not a bust. No QB in the history of the franchise was ever a bust. But the top rated defensive player in the draft? Can't win you a Super Bowl. Big fat bust.

 

[Spin Doctor]

I just read a post declaring that Anderson or Carter "won't win you a Super Bowl" and two posts later, I read a post that says Stouffer and Myer were not busts.

Now which one of you first round quarterback lovers is going explain this? I mean following your collective logic, Stouffer and Myer will win you a Super Bowl. Isn't that where the goal posts have currently been moved to? If a player can't win you the Super Bowl, all by his lonesome, then he isn't worth adding to the roster? But apparently Stouffer and Myer are. Because they aren't busts. Never were busts. They couldn't' win us a Super Bowl but for revisionist history buffs, that doesn't really matter because in the end, they were NOT busts. Stan Gelbaugh? Not a bust. No QB in the history of the franchise was ever a bust. But the top rated defensive player in the draft? Can't win you a Super Bowl. Big fat bust.

They do have a point in that QB is the single most important position on the field. This is more true in today's NFL than it was in the past. The rule changes and the NFL has really pushed the passing game to the forefront.

Even if Carter or Anderson are all-pros, they're never going to have the same impact as a competent Quarterback. While they play important positions, they don't have the same agency to single handedly alter a game that a Quarterback has.

The argument here is: We're in a position that we probably will never be in during the Pete Carroll era. If there is a QB that Carroll deems worthy, it's definitely worth at least kicking the tires, if not outright drafting them. Especially with the questions that are surrounding Carter right now.

Despite what you're saying, there is a HUGE cliff between QB hit rate from even the top 15 to the 32nd picks and an even larger gap between that and the following rounds.

Carroll definitely has the option of doing so with Geno Smith's contract.

You're talking about the bust rate of QB's, but keep in mind the bust rate of D-Line is actually very similar to that of QB's in the first round.

I honestly wouldn't fault Schneider and Carroll going either way and it really would not surprise me in the least to see a QB drafted at number 5.

 

[Jac]

They do have a point in that QB is the single most important position on the field. This is more true in today's NFL than it was in the past. The rule changes and the NFL has really pushed the passing game to the forefront.

Even if Carter or Anderson are all-pros, they're never going to have the same impact as a competent Quarterback. While they play important positions, they don't have the same agency to single handedly alter a game that a Quarterback has.

The argument here is: We're in a position that we probably will never be in during the Pete Carroll era. If there is a QB that Carroll deems worthy, it's definitely worth at least kicking the tires, if not outright drafting them. Especially with the questions that are surrounding Carter right now.

Despite what you're saying, there is a HUGE cliff between QB hit rate from even the top 15 to the 32nd picks and an even larger gap between that and the following rounds.

Carroll definitely has the option of doing so with Geno Smith's contract.

You're talking about the bust rate of QB's, but keep in mind the bust rate of D-Line is actually very similar to that of QB's in the first round.

I honestly wouldn't fault Schneider and Carroll going either way and it really would not surprise me in the least to see a QB drafted at number 5.

Exactly. The strategy being espoused in the "don't draft a QB" posts is how you remain a perpetual 8/9 win team. If they don't pick a QB, it's because they've dissected every one of their throws ten times over, spent countless hours with their offensive staff to see if they can game plan success with what they do best, project their development 2-3 years forward, etc. Look at the Mahomes, Justin Herbert, Josh Allen scouting reports. Tons of identified weaknesses that project next-level failure. But if you don't take a chance and allow your offensive staff to develop them, you're not really giving yourself a chance in today's NFL. The opportunity cost in missing out on Anderson and Carter is just so small compared to the potential upside.

 

[Hockey Guy]

QB is a tough position?
Who knew?

 

[haroldseattle]

If they choose to take a QB high, or even at all, they have maneuvered both Geno and Lock contracts as easy outs. So if said potential pick turns out to be good then starting next year we could have a new starter on the majority of his rookie deal.

With Geno only being a 10 million dollar cap hit this year before tripling next season.



Gives the Seahawks the ability to let Richardson learn for a year then move on from Geno and slide in Richardson and benifit from his rookie contract.
The Seahawks have a good roster around the QB with a decent OL that should get better, a pair of great receivers, and a good RB, so I don't see any reason that Richardson couldn't succeed with the Seahawks. Having Richardson sit for year still gives the Seahawks 4 years of a bargain price QB who wouldn't touch the 31 million Geno is due to make in 2024 and Geno being 33 already, you need to have next man up available when age takes it's toll on Geno.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

There isn't a generational talent that will be there at #5. It's not unlikely that both Will Anderson and Jalen Carter both have good, not great, careers. Taking a chance on a QB at #5 is not a risk in that sense. It's risky NOT taking a chance on one of the QBs.

Taking a chance on a QB that you don't view is generational at 5 is about as risky as it gets.

Drafting a QB that will take years to develop just because you can choose that QB sooner than other teams isn't good GM'ing and roster building. That's what bad organizations do. "Omg we have to pick this guy when we have the chance cause we don't want other teams to draft him!"

I get it, Richardson is an extremely attractive prospect........and if Pete and John see him as the QB of the future that they can mold into an elite level QB? Fine, draft him.

But I don't see them thinking that, not for a playoff team that thinks it's on the way to filling out the rest of their roster to compete for another SB. Using the #5 on a player that's not even going to help your team for years would be a head scratcher.

 

[Jac]

Taking a chance on a QB that you don't view is generational at 5 is about as risky as it gets.

Drafting a QB that will take years to develop just because you can choose that QB sooner than other teams isn't good GM'ing and roster building. That's what bad organizations do. "Omg we have to pick this guy when we have the chance cause we don't want other teams to draft him!"

I get it, Richardson is an extremely attractive prospect........and if Pete and John see him as the QB of the future that they can mold into an elite level QB? Fine, draft him.

But I don't see them thinking that, not for a playoff team that thinks it's on the way to filling out the rest of their roster to compete for another SB. Using the #5 on a player that's not even going to help your team for years would be a head scratcher.

I indicated that the Seahawks are likely doing extensive research right now to evaluate these QB prospects because they could very well be in position to take one. If they identify one they believe that can become great (doesn't have to be "generational"), that is great GM'ing. If they don't, they'll settle on one of the defenders. But they're taking a very hard look at that possibility versus posters here that are basically saying, "this QB isn't perfect...this QB isn't generational...too risky for me...pass". That's amateur message board GM'ing. The upside to being right is franchise transformational. The downside is just part of the game. Lynch and Shanahan have built a championship-caliber roster and were very wrong about Lance. It's just how it goes with first round QBs.

Is there any QB in the last 5-7 years that you would have drafted? I'm confident that I can find scouting reports that say it's a bad idea.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Is there any QB in the last 5-7 years that you would have drafted? I'm confident that I can find scouting reports that say it's a bad idea.

You tell me:

2015
Marcus Mariota
Jameis Winston

2016
Jared Goff
Carson Wentz
Paxton Lynch

2017
Mitch Trubisky
Patrick Mahomes
Deshaun Watson

2018
Baker Mayfield
Sam Darnold
Josh Allen
Josh Rosen
Lamar Jackson

2019
Kyler Murray
Daniel Jones
Dwayne Haskins

2020
Joe Burrow
Tua
Justin Herbert
Jordan Love

2021
Trevor Lawrence
Zach Wilson
Trey Lance
Mac Jones
Justin Fields

2022
Cody Pickett


Some great QB's on this list, but damn man there are WAY more 1st round stinkers and busts. Not sure what the batting average is on other position groups, but I'd venture to bet you better be damn sure if you're taking a QB at 5 you've got the biggest body of work to look at film and evaluate him........because a bad D-lineman or Center isn't setting your franchise back 6-7 years, but drafting the wrong QB absolutely does.

Something many in here aren't taking into account with this discussion.

 

[Jac]

You tell me:



Some great QB's on this list, but damn man there are WAY more 1st round stinkers and busts. Not sure what the batting average is on other position groups, but I'd venture to bet you better be damn sure if you're taking a QB at 5 you've got the biggest body of work to look at film and evaluate him........because a bad D-lineman or Center isn't setting your franchise back 6-7 years, but drafting the wrong QB absolutely does.

Something many in here aren't taking into account with this discussion.

And the ones that got it right have championship windows for the next 10 years because of QB play, not because "I'm going to pick a safe defender" play. GM's don't have the luxury of drafting scared. We already had that in Tim Ruskell, who would only draft 4-year starter choir boys. That's how we got Lamar King instead of Calais Campbell. That's how we ended up with "safest player in the draft" Aaron Curry. Geno Smith is a QB that keeps us respectable until Schneider finds a QB that makes us a SB contender. They're dissecting Richardson, Levis, and now potentially Stroud to see if one of them can be that guy.

 

[Torc]

I just read a post declaring that Anderson or Carter "won't win you a Super Bowl" and two posts later, I read a post that says Stouffer and Myer were not busts.

Now which one of you first round quarterback lovers is going explain this? I mean following your collective logic, Stouffer and Myer will win you a Super Bowl. Isn't that where the goal posts have currently been moved to? If a player can't win you the Super Bowl, all by his lonesome, then he isn't worth adding to the roster? But apparently Stouffer and Myer are. Because they aren't busts. Never were busts. They couldn't' win us a Super Bowl but for revisionist history buffs, that doesn't really matter because in the end, they were NOT busts. Stan Gelbaugh? Not a bust. No QB in the history of the franchise was ever a bust. But the top rated defensive player in the draft? Can't win you a Super Bowl. Big fat bust.

To me, the point is that development is at least as important as talent. Brady had none of the measurables that Richardson has, but he was parked behind Bledsoe and saw how a pro was successful in that offense. I'm sure Richardson will do fine in the right environment. I'm equally sure that if some really crappy team picking at the top of the draft chooses him and throws him in as the starter there's a really good chance he'll bomb.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

And the ones that got it right have championship windows for the next 10 years because of QB play, not because "I'm going to pick a safe defender" play. GM's don't have the luxury of drafting scared. We already had that in Tim Ruskell, who would only draft 4-year starter choir boys. That's how we got Lamar King instead of Calais Campbell. That's how we ended up with "safest player in the draft" Aaron Curry. Geno Smith is a QB that keeps us respectable until Schneider finds a QB that makes us a SB contender. They're dissecting Richardson, Levis, and now potentially Stroud to see if one of them can be that guy.

Will this QB be better than All Pro Geno Smith over the next 2-3 years as this roster improves and enters into a more serious deep run type of playoff roster.

THAT'S the question Pete and John are evaluating. Pete's 71 years old, he's not thinking how Anthony Richardson can help him win 7 years from now when he's caught up to where Geno's at now.

 

[hawkfan68]

You tell me:

2015
Marcus Mariota
Jameis Winston

2016
Jared Goff
Carson Wentz
Paxton Lynch

2017
Mitch Trubisky
Patrick Mahomes
Deshaun Watson

2018
Baker Mayfield
Sam Darnold
Josh Allen
Josh Rosen
Lamar Jackson

2019
Kyler Murray
Daniel Jones
Dwayne Haskins

2020
Joe Burrow
Tua
Justin Herbert
Jordan Love

2021
Trevor Lawrence
Zach Wilson
Trey Lance
Mac Jones
Justin Fields

2022
Cody Pickett


Some great QB's on this list, but damn man there are WAY more 1st round stinkers and busts. Not sure what the batting average is on other position groups, but I'd venture to bet you better be damn sure if you're taking a QB at 5 you've got the biggest body of work to look at film and evaluate him........because a bad D-lineman or Center isn't setting your franchise back 6-7 years, but drafting the wrong QB absolutely does.

Something many in here aren't taking into account with this discussion.

Cody Pickett making a comeback at 42 yrs old is tremendous

 

[Mick063]

Seahawks are not taking Richardson with #5. It just isn't happening. They have made some mistakes in the past, but they aren't this stupid. Accounting for players drafted prior to #5 and removed from their board, I think there are at least six other players they would take over Richardson (at #5) and I also believe that if they were really sold on Richardson, they would trade down to the 10-12 range to take him because that, along with the extra second round pick that comes in the deal, is closer to his relative worth.

Further, people are just discounting the five-year timer. It seems like you can relentlessly beat them over the head with it and they still can't seem to grasp it. The days of DEVELOPING top five picks are over. Not with the second contract typically coming in at a quarter billion dollars with a good chunk of it guaranteed. It just does not make any fiscal sense to groom a quarterback into relative unaffordability just so another team can inevitably outbid you and take advantage of your time investment. It makes no fiscal sense at all. In fact, the owners clearly understand this huge fiscal risk and are low profile "blackballing" Lamar Jackson and privately scolding the Browns over the DeShawn Watson precedent as a counter measure to mitigate it from snowballing into a repeatedly untenable position.

The format of the labor agreement has basically imposed a situation where rookie quarterbacks drafted in the first round have to be thrown into the fire early. No more grooming. No more developing. Trey Lance and Jordan Love are the last of their kind. A fool's errand that GMs will avoid like the plague.

 

[jeremiah]

As a viable long term QB option he was a bust. Never really did improve on what he showed as a rookie. In terms of providing additional draft capital, then yes he was a success.

Agreed, he flashed then fell into the crapper. Wasn't he ROY?

 

[Jac]

Seahawks are not taking Richardson. It just isn't happening. They have made some mistakes in the past, but they aren't this stupid.

And if they don't, it's because they evaluated the hell out of him and not because they watched some YouTube highlights and read about the Combine.

 

[sc85sis]

I remember when a certain USC coach publicly told sports writers and broadcasters that Matt Barkley would be the best QB to ever come out of USC. That was just after Carson Palmer, who was a great Division 1 player, and pretty solid as a Pro. Coach Carroll is not very good picking QBs...just adding this here because of the memory trigger.

I may be misremembering, but I don't recall Pete saying that. I do recall him indicating that Matt was an outlier in that he was fully ready to start as a true freshman.

I also remember Pete saying that Mark Sanchez was not ready to go to the NFL and that QBs who had so few starts as Mark statistically did not succeed as NFL starters.

 

[hawkfan68]

They do have a point in that QB is the single most important position on the field. This is more true in today's NFL than it was in the past. The rule changes and the NFL has really pushed the passing game to the forefront.

Even if Carter or Anderson are all-pros, they're never going to have the same impact as a competent Quarterback. While they play important positions, they don't have the same agency to single handedly alter a game that a Quarterback has.

The argument here is: We're in a position that we probably will never be in during the Pete Carroll era. If there is a QB that Carroll deems worthy, it's definitely worth at least kicking the tires, if not outright drafting them. Especially with the questions that are surrounding Carter right now.

Despite what you're saying, there is a HUGE cliff between QB hit rate from even the top 15 to the 32nd picks and an even larger gap between that and the following rounds.

Carroll definitely has the option of doing so with Geno Smith's contract.

You're talking about the bust rate of QB's, but keep in mind the bust rate of D-Line is actually very similar to that of QB's in the first round.

I honestly wouldn't fault Schneider and Carroll going either way and it really would not surprise me in the least to see a QB drafted at number 5.

While I generally agree with the bolded statement, I believe Aaron Donald proved he can single-handedly alter games. Reggie White, Warren Sapp, Ray Lewis, Lawrence Taylor, are some of the others had game altering impact and who weren't QBs.

 

[DarkVictory23]

I'm pretty comfortable with the Seahawks drafting a QB or any other position. I'm less inclined to support the 'you gotta draft a QB because we'll never draft this high again!' argument. If Pete or John see a guy they really think is the answer in a year or two--and they don't think he'll be available at 20--then get him! By all means.

But drafting a QB in the top 5 just because you can say you drafted a QB in the top 5 is not smart drafting.

As for the Richardson situation... I'll be honest, if he's the only 'Top 5' level prospect left when it's time for the Seahawks to draft I'd probably be happier if they drafted down. I mean, I hope he does great in the NFL, but I'm simply not a fan of using a first round pick (let alone a top 5 pick) on a project.

I'm not John or Pete, I haven't met with any players, I don't even follow college football all that much, so there is a ton of salt to be taken with this opinion but: I simply don't believe that our front office would have looked at this entire draft class and couldn't find one single player that they believe could contribute immediately to this team's success so instead they use their draft capital on a project pick. (And that is what Richardson is).

3rd round or later? Sure, experiment to your hearts' content but with this pick which will AT LEAST have some decent trade value? My personal pick would be against.

 

[jeremiah]

I may be misremembering, but I don't recall Pete saying that. I do recall him indicating that Matt was an outlier in that he was fully ready to start as a true freshman.

I also remember Pete saying that Mark Sanchez was not ready to go to the NFL and that QBs who had so few starts as Mark statistically did not succeed as NFL starters.

You are right, he didn't want Sanchez to leave, and wasn't him leaving the reason that Matt had to start as a freshman?