Yeah I agree CP.
You could argue that as things adjust, Alabama is going to get more of its share of the top players in the country. So you might have a few winners sneak in. But it will be near impossible to litmus test them.
How a QB deals with adversity or pressure directly predicts success. We did an analytics model years ago, on what separates a Montana from that #1 QB from Oregon, from someone like a Brunell (it was a while ago). The was FOR an NFL team. The #1 factor that determined success of a QB, over all others? Was comebacks over ranked teams in the 4th quarter.
Obviously, it has been over a decade, things change. But I am betting that factor is still relevant.
People forget, the most important strength of Wilson was not his long ball - but his tendency to get better under pressure. That is not a common attribute. One of the hardest to find. It is the reason guys like Tiger Woods made their putts and other guys missed easy ones. The reason stars hit clutch free throws and other guys misses turn into something else (looking at you Shawn Kemp).
Guys that can tune out their own emotions and somehow not get impacted by the crazy burst of adrenaline that screws up your accuracy? Those guys usually are usually (not always but usually) the big drivers of success.
And those Alabama teams are so dominant, so talented at every level, you can never tell how well they do when under pressure. Same problem with drafting Clemson QBs when they were good (for 8 min).
If the QB is driving those wins? Maybe. If the system is driving those wins? Then you are just drafting Ohio State QBs.
You could say the same for Burrows, but then if you watched those games - you would see he dragged those LSU teams kicking and screaming to wins. He would not let them lose. It was clear Burrows would be great. I wasn't sold on Trevor Lawrence, but you never know. He could be better later, but that thing where QBs will their team to victory when they are under the gun? Montana had it, Wilson has it, Peyton had it, most of the decade-long winner guys had it. Aaron Rodgers certainly had it. So did Brett Favre and Steve Young.
Getting a QB from a dominant team is a crapshoot because in college, it isn't all about the QB like the NFL. Roster strength matters. Depth really matters. Big-name teams win based on depth/roster strength.
You can try to use big games as a test but then look at sample sizes of 1, 2, or 3 games. Not near enough to know.
I could be wrong about Bryce Young. Haven't seen as much of him. But in what I have seen, he wasn't really tested. So we are back at a 1 in 3 change IF we get the #1 pick IN THE RIGHT YEAR.
It isn't good enough to be terrible. You need to be both terrible and lucky.