Jerod Mayo at AFC Coaches Breakfast

[Real fan 02]

I liked him better lol

Lol u liked the 6 rings better

 

[signbabybrady]

Lol u liked the 6 rings better

That too

 

[Joey007]

No matter what the Pats do with this pick, 80% of Patriot fans will not be happy.

I would argue a good 80% of rational fans will be happy with a QB. The 20% that think this is still 1975 lurk in here.

 

[Ivan]

Those people are confusing "high pick" with "best return", and that it definitely not always the case. In fact it's only the case with a transcendent talent, which is very hard to determine with a 21 year old.

Yes we only get to pick #3 once in a generation, and yes there appear to be some good QB's. But #3 is also extraordinary draft capital that can be converted to a half dozen top 75 picks over the next 2 drafts, and totally remake this team wherever it needs improvement.

“ Those people” understand that a top 3 pick is rare, and that it’s your best opportunity to get a franchise Quarterback. They also understand that you can have all the good players you want, but that you won’t be winning a Lombardi without a franchise QB.

If those making the decision decide that there were only two franchise caliber QB’s, and both are gone when the 3rd pick comes up, then they should try to trade out for as much as they can get. But if they pass on a franchise QB simply for more draft picks then they should all lose their jobs immediately.

 

[Ivan]

Those people are confusing "high pick" with "best return", and that it definitely not always the case. In fact it's only the case with a transcendent talent, which is very hard to determine with a 21 year old.

Yes we only get to pick #3 once in a generation, and yes there appear to be some good QB's. But #3 is also extraordinary draft capital that can be converted to a half dozen top 75 picks over the next 2 drafts, and totally remake this team wherever it needs improvement.

What good is a “ haul” when you have to turn around give up just as much to get the franchise quarterback in a future draft.? You aren’t gaining anything, you are just delaying your shot at contending again.

 

[Thelonious]

If they believe the QB is a franchise caliber quarterback there is no offer that can trump that, as you would have to give up the same amount to turn around and get one in following years.You can get a high quality player at any other position in the first half of pretty much every draft, teams find themselves having to give up 3 first rounders routinely to have to go up into the top five for their QB, which separates that from every other position. People who lack maturity of judgement don’t really understand this yet, but someday they most likely will. You don’t win championships with mediocre quarterbacks, and the Patriots won’t be winning anything until they get is really good quarterback,

"If they believe..." If we know anything about drafting quarterbacks, we know that what you "believe" is more often than not worthless "information." Given the level of uncertainty in the draft in general, there is a case to be made for playing the odds and getting more tries at the various brass rings. Add to this that we have many needs beyond QB, and that qb prospects really can be ruined by playing behind a lousy O-line and throwing to receivers who can't get open or catch the damned ball, there is a case to be made for making the trade, or for considering the terms on offer, and it would certainly be foolish not to do so. Maye is promising but unpolished; Daniels is talented but physically marginal, subject therefore to injury. While I think both might be worthy of choosing in the 3rd spot, neither is such a lead pipe cinch that we should forego listening to offers for the pick. In general, there is a foolish tendency hereabouts to insist on making these decisions before the data is in, before one need do so. Among that data - certainly - is what other teams might offer for the pick.

 

[patman12]

I like him but think Penix Jr is better right now.

It’s funnier when you write Penis Jr.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

“ Those people” understand that a top 3 pick is rare, and that it’s your best opportunity to get a franchise Quarterback. They also understand that you can have all the good players you want, but that you won’t be winning a Lombardi without a franchise QB.

If those making the decision decide that there were only two franchise caliber QB’s, and both are gone when the 3rd pick comes up, then they should try to trade out for as much as they can get. But if they pass on a franchise QB simply for more draft picks then they should all lose their jobs immediately.

It's not either way always, that's my point and yours too. It depends on the analysis they've done on the guy who's in front of them, and how special or unique they feel he is. Given the risk of picking a flameout like so many other top-3 QB's the past few years, the default position should probably be "trade down unless convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt" - i.e., prove why we should pick here. A high threshold.

 

[Ivan]

"If they believe..." If we know anything about drafting quarterbacks, we know that what you "believe" is more often than not worthless "information." Given the level of uncertainty in the draft in general, there is a case to be made for playing the odds and getting more tries at the various brass rings. Add to this that we have many needs beyond QB, and that qb prospects really can be ruined by playing behind a lousy O-line and throwing to receivers who can't get open or catch the damned ball, there is a case to be made for making the trade, or for considering the terms on offer, and it would certainly be foolish not to do so. Maye is promising but unpolished; Daniels is talented but physically marginal, subject therefore to injury. While I think both might be worthy of choosing in the 3rd spot, neither is such a lead pipe cinch that we should forego listening to offers for the pick. In general, there is a foolish tendency hereabouts to insist on making these decisions before the data is in, before one need do so. Among that data - certainly - is what other teams might offer for the pick.

Neither one of us has a fraction of the material or knowledge to evaluate these prospects the way the scouts, coaches, and front office can. And while you seem to think it’s about quantity the truth of the matter is that you don’t win in the NFL unless you have a good quarterback; in fact the greatest coach in NFL history just lose his job because of that. And you don’t win Champiomshios without a really good quarterback. So it doesn’t matter how many good players you have if you don’t have a quarterback. And you don’t need to look any further than last season’s Bengals to see what happens when yours goes down. They are loaded at WR, and were a contender that last 3-4 seasons, but didn’t even make the playoffs when their QB went down, So when you see a quarterback prospect with franchise potential available where you are picking you take them, otherwise you end up being just another sucky team without a quarterback.

 

[borg]

I would argue a good 80% of rational fans will be happy with a QB. The 20% that think this is still 1975 lurk in here.

Speaking of 80%....

80% of 1st round QBs taken in 2021 have flamed out spectacularly. Three have been ditched by their drafting team and one has no market.

I suppose 80% of fans of those 5 teams in 2021 experienced an instant (though fleeting) happiness you seek now.

 

[signbabybrady]

Speaking of 80%....

80% of 1st round QBs taken in 2021 have flamed out spectacularly. Three have been ditched by their drafting team and one has no market.

I suppose 80% of fans of those 5 teams in 2021 experienced an instant (though fleeting) happiness you seek now.

First it's unfair to hold those busts against Maye, Daniels, or McCarthy.

Second in most cases I think the team made the right move unfortunately the players didn't realize their potential. You could argue maybe the Niners should of done something different but then again Lance has played the least so maybe he still has a ceiling the others showed they won't likely reach.

 

[Thelonious]

Neither one of us has a fraction of the material or knowledge to evaluate these prospects the way the scouts, coaches, and front office can. And while you seem to think it’s about quantity the truth of the matter is that you don’t win in the NFL unless you have a good quarterback; in fact the greatest coach in NFL history just lose his job because of that. And you don’t win Champiomshios without a really good quarterback. So it doesn’t matter how many good players you have if you don’t have a quarterback. And you don’t need to look any further than last season’s Bengals to see what happens when yours goes down. They are loaded at WR, and were a contender that last 3-4 seasons, but didn’t even make the playoffs when their QB went down, So when you see a quarterback prospect with franchise potential available where you are picking you take them, otherwise you end up being just another sucky team without a quarterback.

I taught philosophy for 25 years. I often had occasion to say, "Too many arguments are analogous to arguing whether sodium or chlorine is the more essential element in the composition of salt." This argument is of that nature. Obviously both a good roster and a good quarterback are essential to the makeup of a good team. That is not the question. The question is, on this particular occasion, in these particular circumstances, is it wiser to secure one or the other at this time. The theory is settled: it takes both. Arguing about that is pointless, a waste of time bound to become a mere pissing contest. The apposite question is which is most wisely, cheaply, effectively secured at this time. That question is currently unanswerable, since all the facts - most particularly what might be on offer in exchange for the pick - are not yet in.

 

[patfanken]

“ Those people” understand that a top 3 pick is rare, and that it’s your best opportunity to get a franchise Quarterback. They also understand that you can have all the good players you want, but that you won’t be winning a Lombardi without a franchise QB.

If those making the decision decide that there were only two franchise caliber QB’s, and both are gone when the 3rd pick comes up, then they should try to trade out for as much as they can get. But if they pass on a franchise QB simply for more draft picks then they should all lose their jobs immediately.

Well, #3 picks are NOT rare, they have one every year. But what IS rare is the fact that there WILL be an elite QB "prospect" available when the Pats pick. So if things pan out they can get Maye, who has the highest ceiling and lowest floor, or Danels who is a true dual threat QB with a good, not great arm, and will always be an injury risk.

Both guys present significant risks. Maye is the most "raw" of the 3 and will take perhaps a full year to become ready to take over, and Daniels who threw to 2 top WR's that will go in the first round, and has those "skinny legs".

Arguments can be made on all sides. But remember this old adage. "The best ability is AVAILABILITY". That's the reason I'd be willing to take the risk and hope Maye is there over Daniels. Though I fully realize that Daniels is more likely to have the better first year.

But the point is, there WILL be a guy there at #3 who will be worthy of the pick at the most important offensive position on the team, as well as a critical need. I don't think you can trade down, especially since McCarthy would likely be gone at #11

The ONLY team that has a shot at getting us off that pick and that's the Vikings. And I ask would you really take a package of #11 and #23 and a 2025 #1 who will most likely be in the bottom half of the first round? Is that enough for you. It wouldn't be for me.

 

[Thelonious]

Well, #3 picks are NOT rare, they have one every year. But what IS rare is the fact that there WILL be an elite QB "prospect" available when the Pats pick. So if things pan out they can get Maye, who has the highest ceiling and lowest floor, or Danels who is a true dual threat QB with a good, not great arm, and will always be an injury risk.

Both guys present significant risks. Maye is the most "raw" of the 3 and will take perhaps a full year to become ready to take over, and Daniels who threw to 2 top WR's that will go in the first round, and has those "skinny legs".

Arguments can be made on all sides. But remember this old adage. "The best ability is AVAILABILITY". That's the reason I'd be willing to take the risk and hope Maye is there over Daniels. Though I fully realize that Daniels is more likely to have the better first year.

But the point is, there WILL be a guy there at #3 who will be worthy of the pick at the most important offensive position on the team, as well as a critical need. I don't think you can trade down, especially since McCarthy would likely be gone at #11

The ONLY team that has a shot at getting us off that pick and that's the Vikings. And I ask would you really take a package of #11 and #23 and a 2025 #1 who will most likely be in the bottom half of the first round? Is that enough for you. It wouldn't be for me.

"But the point is, there WILL be a guy there at #3 who will be worthy of the pick at the most important offensive position on the team"

I do not think you know this, at all. The record of drafting qb's is rich even with "cant-misses" (a standing for which neither Maye nor Daniels qualifies) missing. That is undeniable. My view is that until we know what the offer is (in contradistinction with pointless guessing over what other teams might offer), we must be open to vetting whatever offers for the pick are actually made. It is not at all uncommon for quite surprisingly generous offers to be made in the draft process, some the result of desperation, some of a genius for evaluation, I suppose, some in response to an impulse to gamble. You wait and see. Given all this, any judgment that we must take a qb is irresponsibly premature.

That said, if no munificent offer is made, as you (and frankly I) suspect, I would have no qualms about taking either Maye or Daniels. I would probably prefer Maye, but I wouldn't squawk if it ends up being Daniels.

I also think that any desperation to "get our guy"this year is at least somewhat mitigated by the fact we are very likely to have a dismal record again next year, probably not dismal enough to score a third pick, but high enough to pick up some sort of reasonable qb prospect. Las Vegas has us slotted to have the worst record in the NFL, which translates (to overextend the argument, I admit!) to gaining the first pick.

 

[Sicilian]

Speaking of 80%....

80% of 1st round QBs taken in 2021 have flamed out spectacularly. Three have been ditched by their drafting team and one has no market.

I suppose 80% of fans of those 5 teams in 2021 experienced an instant (though fleeting) happiness you seek now.

No doubt drafting a QB is not a guaranteed solution. My question would be: Where do you want to get your QB that would have better odds?

 

[HSanders]

No doubt drafting a QB is not a guaranteed solution. My question would be: Where do you want to get your QB that would have better odds?

one reason the nfl was foolish to give up nfle. i think 4-5 starting qbs were developed there including a few sb qbs.

 

[Thelonious]

No doubt drafting a QB is not a guaranteed solution. My question would be: Where do you want to get your QB that would have better odds?

The "odds" have proven a very unreliable nail upon which to hang one's hat in this matter. You might recall where the greatest qb of all time was picked, or reflect on the present standing of a certain former "Mr. Irrelevant." To some extent, additional picks are somewhat more genuinely a bird in the hand than is even the most ballyhooed of glittering QB prospects, simply because more chances, more snatches at the brass ring, equal a better chance of actually snatching it.

 

[Sicilian]

The "odds" have proven a very unreliable nail upon which to hang one's hat in this matter. You might recall where the greatest qb of all time was picked, or reflect on the present standing of a certain former "Mr. Irrelevant." To some extent, additional picks are somewhat more genuinely a bird in the hand than is even the most ballyhooed of glittering QB prospects, simply because more chances, more snatches at the brass ring, equal a better chance of actually snatching it.

I get that, but we can't use Tom Brady as an example of anything. He's 1 of 1, and as cool as the Brock Purdy story is, he hasn't really proven anything yet.

My count may be off by a few, but I counted 94 QBs taken in the 6th round or later since 2000. Other than Brady and Purdy, here are the ones that could MAYBE be argued to be starting caliber:

Marc Bulger
Ryan Fitzpatrick
Matt Cassel
Gardner Minshew

And personally, I wouldn't consider any of them franchise QBs. So, being generous, 6 out of 94 QBs taken in the vicinity of Brady's pick worked on any real level. So I don't think the "Brady was a 6th rounder" argument really holds any water.

The point wasn't that first round QBs are sure things. FAR from it. But the odds get worse the lower down you get, and one GOAT outlier doesn't change that.

 

[Thelonious]

I get that, but we can't use Tom Brady as an example of anything. He's 1 of 1, and as cool as the Brock Purdy story is, he hasn't really proven anything yet.

My count may be off by a few, but I counted 94 QBs taken in the 6th round or later since 2000. Other than Brady and Purdy, here are the ones that could MAYBE be argued to be starting caliber:

Marc Bulger
Ryan Fitzpatrick
Matt Cassel
Gardner Minshew

And personally, I wouldn't consider any of them franchise QBs. So, being generous, 6 out of 94 QBs taken in the vicinity of Brady's pick worked on any real level. So I don't think the "Brady was a 6th rounder" argument really holds any water.

The point wasn't that first round QBs are sure things. FAR from it. But the odds get worse the lower down you get, and one GOAT outlier doesn't change that.

Curran did an analysis recently showing that even very high QB draft picks also have a surprisingly strong record of failure. I don't dispute that getting nfirst dibs gives a somewhat better chance, but the improvement in odds is surprisingly weak, and certainly not tantamount to a sure thing. I do think in a vacuum that we should have a go at a QB with our #3 pick, but as such picks are far from a sure thing, we must also consider whatever sorts of offers are made for the pick. Saying at this point which approach is wisest is simply premature, since we have no idea yet what the offers might be. I'm sort of surprised, frankly, that such a commonsensical proposal is at all controversial.

 

[Sicilian]

Curran did an analysis recently showing that even very high QB draft picks also have a surprisingly strong record of failure. I don't dispute that getting nfirst dibs gives a somewhat better chance, but the improvement in odds is surprisingly weak, and certainly not tanatamount to a sure thing. I do think in a vacuum that we should have a go at a QB with our #3 pick, but as such picks are far from a sure thing, we must also consider whatever sorts of offers are made for the pick. Saying at this point which approach is wisest is simply premature, since we have no idea yet what the offers might be. I'm sort of surprised, frankly, that such a commonsensical proposal is at all controversial.

Oh sure, I'm not actually against trading down. If Minnesota comes to us with a "can't refuse" package, like 11, 23, a 1st next year and Justin Jefferson, I'm running that paperwork to the league office before the Vikings GM comes down from his Ayhuasca trip. Or, if the Pats aren't really sold on the QBs that are left at 3, I don't want them taking one just to take one. I just don't want them to trade down for more picks simply on the basis that taking a QB is a risk, because it would be a risk (and likely a worse one) the further back you decide to roll those dice.

Long winded answer to a short one: If you believe in the guy, take him, and if you're wrong that's just life in the QB carousel. If you don't believe in the guy, trade down or take someone at another position that you DO believe in. But don't pick scared.