Chances of a drafted QB cracking the top 5 in the league

@"Godhead" said: Allen Burrow Herbert Mahomes Purdy Stroud are not retiring anytime soon. I see drafting a QB that could win multiple SBs a very though task with the best QBs in the league being so young. Could argue most are in the AFC so, NFC teams have a much better shot. 49er example is probably the best way to go in AFC. Build a great supporting cast, they got lucky with Purdy.

This argument goes on and on here and elsewhere.  However, the Vikings have not even tried to hit a homerun at qb in the draft, and neither have they built a team from the trenches out with a genuine chance to compete for a title.   They aren't really involved in either of the scenarios that fans want to argue about ad nauseum.   Ownership's strategy is just try to make the playoffs then we might get lucky some day.   Which given the general luck level of the Vikings for 60 years seems even worse than it sounds.

@"comet52" said:

@"Godhead" said: Allen Burrow Herbert Mahomes Purdy Stroud are not retiring anytime soon. I see drafting a QB that could win multiple SBs a very though task with the best QBs in the league being so young. Could argue most are in the AFC so, NFC teams have a much better shot. 49er example is probably the best way to go in AFC. Build a great supporting cast, they got lucky with Purdy.

This argument goes on and on here and elsewhere.  However, the Vikings have not even tried to hit a homerun at qb in the draft, and neither have they built a team from the trenches out with a genuine chance to compete for a title.   They aren't really involved in either of the scenarios that fans want to argue about ad nauseum.   Ownership's strategy is just try to make the playoffs then we might get lucky some day.   Which given the general luck level of the Vikings for 60 years seems even worse than it sounds.

As I have said before, luck matters. Even when you are the worst team in the league, you need luck to find your franchise QB. The only guaranty when you have an awful team is that you will suck for a year, probably more. There is no guaranteed formula for a SB title. Not long ago the Vikings were thought to be a starting QB away from a SB. Then they got themselves a starting QB. 

Build a playoff team and hope to get lucky is as good of a strategy as hoping you will draft the next Mahomes. SF built a great roster then spent 3 first round picks on Trey Lance. That did not work. But they found a franchise QB with the last pick in the draft. That is pure luck. And they still lost to the Eagles when Purdy got injured and to the Chiefs when Mahomes took over. 

Miami tanked for Tua (and passed on Herbert) and has a nice team. So what? They still need to get past Mahomes and Burrows and Allen and Lamar (2-time MVP for the last pick in the first round - pretty lucky - still no ring).

Men plan; gods laugh. 

I guess I don’t believe that there is a fixed number of good
QBs.  I also don’t think that we really
know if some of these young guys are going to be able to lead their teams to
the same level of success while they are commanding massive salaries.  Guys like Brady, Manning, Mahomes, etc. are
guys you know are going to be winners regardless of their cost.  I don’t think that’s established for the
other guys.

That said, I don’t think it changes strategy much at
all.  If you don’t have Mahomes or at
least a guy that is bringing you to the playoffs 4 out of 5 years, you probably
should be looking for an upgrade and that will come from the draft.  If you have a pretty good but not great QB,
you can upgrade by getting a pretty good QB that is much cheaper via the draft.  Regardless, keep drafting QBs.

I think the strategies that are doomed to fail are “Have a
midlevel starter, pay them a ton, and never bring in competition.” And “Draft a
guy, wait 5 years, then draft another guy”.

Going strictly off OP’s list- only one of those QBs (Purdy) was taken outside the top 10 I believe. So 83% of the top QBs went top 10. 

The Vikings have NEVER drafted a top 10 QB.

So while I get OP’s point and agree with it, it seems like the Vikings are content to try and find a QB to live in that remaining 17% rather than shoot for the ones with much better odds of becoming top tier. If we assume the Vikings would like to have a top tier QB, does this seem like a good strategy to anyone? Bueller??

Last time we drafted a QB with a #1 pick was Culpepper 

Pick 11

Maybe history is about to repeat itself in 24 and hopefully we get lucky. 

@"pattersaur" said: Going strictly off OP’s list- only one of those QBs (Purdy) was taken outside the top 10 I believe. So 83% of the top QBs went top 10. 

The Vikings have NEVER drafted a top 10 QB.

So while I get OP’s point and agree with it, it seems like the Vikings are content to try and find a QB to live in that remaining 17% rather than shoot for the ones with much better odds of becoming top tier. If we assume the Vikings would like to have a top tier QB, does this seem like a good strategy to anyone? Bueller??

Is that a worthwhile stat?  Do you really want to crown that small sample size of guys who failed to make or win the Super Bowl as top tier?  Why are we not including guys like Lamar Jackson and/or Hurts in the mix of guys with some amount of success but not the ultimate success, especially when Jackson won the MVP this year and Hurts made it to the SB last season?
I think you could also say that of the QBs on that list not
drafted in the top 10, 100% of them have been to a Super Bowl, while of the QBs
drafted in the top 10 only 40% have been to a Super Bowl.  Obviously Mahomes is the only one of that
group to win a SB.

Football (I would argue) is the most interdependent sport there is...SB wins as a measure of QB success? Not sure I buy into that. 

You have a # of good qb's (who I would covet greatly) who havent hoisted a Lombardi yet. 

@"medaille" said:

@"pattersaur" said: Going strictly off OP’s list- only one of those QBs (Purdy) was taken outside the top 10 I believe. So 83% of the top QBs went top 10. 

The Vikings have NEVER drafted a top 10 QB.

So while I get OP’s point and agree with it, it seems like the Vikings are content to try and find a QB to live in that remaining 17% rather than shoot for the ones with much better odds of becoming top tier. If we assume the Vikings would like to have a top tier QB, does this seem like a good strategy to anyone? Bueller??

Is that a worthwhile stat?  Do you really want to crown that small sample size of guys who failed to make or win the Super Bowl as top tier?  Why are we not including guys like Lamar Jackson and/or Hurts in the mix of guys with some amount of success but not the ultimate success, especially when Jackson won the MVP this year and Hurts made it to the SB last season?
I think you could also say that of the QBs on that list not
drafted in the top 10, 100% of them have been to a Super Bowl, while of the QBs
drafted in the top 10 only 40% have been to a Super Bowl.  Obviously Mahomes is the only one of that
group to win a SB.

@"AGRforever" said:

@"medaille" said:

@"pattersaur" said: Going strictly off OP’s list- only one of those QBs (Purdy) was taken outside the top 10 I believe. So 83% of the top QBs went top 10. 

The Vikings have NEVER drafted a top 10 QB.

So while I get OP’s point and agree with it, it seems like the Vikings are content to try and find a QB to live in that remaining 17% rather than shoot for the ones with much better odds of becoming top tier. If we assume the Vikings would like to have a top tier QB, does this seem like a good strategy to anyone? Bueller??

Is that a worthwhile stat?  Do you really want to crown that small sample size of guys who failed to make or win the Super Bowl as top tier?  Why are we not including guys like Lamar Jackson and/or Hurts in the mix of guys with some amount of success but not the ultimate success, especially when Jackson won the MVP this year and Hurts made it to the SB last season?
I think you could also say that of the QBs on that list not
drafted in the top 10, 100% of them have been to a Super Bowl, while of the QBs
drafted in the top 10 only 40% have been to a Super Bowl.  Obviously Mahomes is the only one of that
group to win a SB.

Basically if your team wasn't QB'ed by Mahomes or Brady your team hasn't won shit in 20 years.  We should swing early and often until we draft a QB that can become elite.  I actually do not like the idea of giving up 3x 1sts for one of the top 3.  Assuming we can draft McCarthy at 11 we should do so and keep our other draft capital.  He has just as good of a chance to become the next Mahomes level QB as any of the QBs do in this draft.  Unfortunately its nearly 0% but its better then 0.00%. 

@"medaille" said:

@"pattersaur" said: Going strictly off OP’s list- only one of those QBs (Purdy) was taken outside the top 10 I believe. So 83% of the top QBs went top 10. 

The Vikings have NEVER drafted a top 10 QB.

So while I get OP’s point and agree with it, it seems like the Vikings are content to try and find a QB to live in that remaining 17% rather than shoot for the ones with much better odds of becoming top tier. If we assume the Vikings would like to have a top tier QB, does this seem like a good strategy to anyone? Bueller??

Is that a worthwhile stat?  Do you really want to crown that small sample size of guys who failed to make or win the Super Bowl as top tier?  Why are we not including guys like Lamar Jackson and/or Hurts in the mix of guys with some amount of success but not the ultimate success, especially when Jackson won the MVP this year and Hurts made it to the SB last season?
I think you could also say that of the QBs on that list not
drafted in the top 10, 100% of them have been to a Super Bowl, while of the QBs
drafted in the top 10 only 40% have been to a Super Bowl.  Obviously Mahomes is the only one of that
group to win a SB.

@"purplefaithful" said:

@"AGRforever" said:

@"medaille" said:

@"pattersaur" said: Going strictly off OP’s list- only one of those QBs (Purdy) was taken outside the top 10 I believe. So 83% of the top QBs went top 10. 

The Vikings have NEVER drafted a top 10 QB.

So while I get OP’s point and agree with it, it seems like the Vikings are content to try and find a QB to live in that remaining 17% rather than shoot for the ones with much better odds of becoming top tier. If we assume the Vikings would like to have a top tier QB, does this seem like a good strategy to anyone? Bueller??

Is that a worthwhile stat?  Do you really want to crown that small sample size of guys who failed to make or win the Super Bowl as top tier?  Why are we not including guys like Lamar Jackson and/or Hurts in the mix of guys with some amount of success but not the ultimate success, especially when Jackson won the MVP this year and Hurts made it to the SB last season?
I think you could also say that of the QBs on that list not
drafted in the top 10, 100% of them have been to a Super Bowl, while of the QBs
drafted in the top 10 only 40% have been to a Super Bowl.  Obviously Mahomes is the only one of that
group to win a SB.

Basically if your team wasn't QB'ed by Mahomes or Brady your team hasn't won shit in 20 years.  We should swing early and often until we draft a QB that can become elite.  I actually do not like the idea of giving up 3x 1sts for one of the top 3.  Assuming we can draft McCarthy at 11 we should do so and keep our other draft capital.  He has just as good of a chance to become the next Mahomes level QB as any of the QBs do in this draft.  Unfortunately its nearly 0% but its better then 0.00%. 

Or Foles...

The question KAM/KOC need to answer for the Wilfs is does it make any sense to trade up for a Daniels or Maye vs hope there is someone @ 11 who may give them just as good (or almost as good) odds of success?

 I'm not sure if JJM, Penix or Nix are that guy? 

@"purplefaithful" said:

@"AGRforever" said:

@"medaille" said:

@"pattersaur" said: Going strictly off OP’s list- only one of those QBs (Purdy) was taken outside the top 10 I believe. So 83% of the top QBs went top 10. 

The Vikings have NEVER drafted a top 10 QB.

So while I get OP’s point and agree with it, it seems like the Vikings are content to try and find a QB to live in that remaining 17% rather than shoot for the ones with much better odds of becoming top tier. If we assume the Vikings would like to have a top tier QB, does this seem like a good strategy to anyone? Bueller??

Is that a worthwhile stat?  Do you really want to crown that small sample size of guys who failed to make or win the Super Bowl as top tier?  Why are we not including guys like Lamar Jackson and/or Hurts in the mix of guys with some amount of success but not the ultimate success, especially when Jackson won the MVP this year and Hurts made it to the SB last season?
I think you could also say that of the QBs on that list not
drafted in the top 10, 100% of them have been to a Super Bowl, while of the QBs
drafted in the top 10 only 40% have been to a Super Bowl.  Obviously Mahomes is the only one of that
group to win a SB.

Basically if your team wasn't QB'ed by Mahomes or Brady your team hasn't won shit in 20 years.  We should swing early and often until we draft a QB that can become elite.  I actually do not like the idea of giving up 3x 1sts for one of the top 3.  Assuming we can draft McCarthy at 11 we should do so and keep our other draft capital.  He has just as good of a chance to become the next Mahomes level QB as any of the QBs do in this draft.  Unfortunately its nearly 0% but its better then 0.00%. 

Or Foles...

The question KAM/KOC need to answer for the Wilfs is does it make any sense to trade up for a Daniels or Maye vs hope there is someone @ 11 who may give them just as good (or almost as good) odds of success?

 I'm not sure if JJM, Penix or Nix are that guy? 

@"purplefaithful" said: Last time we drafted a QB with a #1 pick was Culpepper 

Pick 11

Maybe history is about to repeat itself in 24 and hopefully we get lucky. 

We picked Culpepper in the 1999 draft. I know we all try very hard to put the 2011 draft out of our memories and I really hate to be the one to call it back to our memories. We did pick a QB at number 12.

@"FLVike" said:

@"purplefaithful" said: Last time we drafted a QB with a #1 pick was Culpepper 

Pick 11

Maybe history is about to repeat itself in 24 and hopefully we get lucky. 

We picked Culpepper in the 1999 draft. I know we all try very hard to put the 2011 draft out of our memories and I really hate to be the one to call it back to our memories. We did pick a QB at number 12.

@"purplefaithful" said: Last time we drafted a QB with a #1 pick was Culpepper 

Pick 11

Maybe history is about to repeat itself in 24 and hopefully we get lucky. 

Culpepper wasn't a great QB without Moss and Carter, as well as the great offensive line he had. He also had a gifted OC.
Some teams seem to believe they need to build a roster, then add a QB as the missing piece. Others believe they need to get the QB, then build around him. I believe in the latter, but you better at least have protection for him or you may ruin him. They all need time to learn. They all tend to hold the ball at first because it takes time to learn. The greatest seasons of many hall of fame QB's come later in their careers for a reason.
I think you pay Cousins because he is as good now as he has ever been.
Which also means taking a QB at 11 you believe in, to learn behind him could be a good strategy. But you have to go after the one QB you truly believe in and not accept leftovers. If you have to move up, you do it!

I think it really boils down to what the brain trust thinks about the QBs in the draft,  they may not be interested in 5 of the 6 names being batted around,  they may be locked onto one guy and one guy only and try and position for him or go a completely different route in the draft all together if that doesn't materialize.

@"jargomcfargo" said:

@"purplefaithful" said: Last time we drafted a QB with a #1 pick was Culpepper 

Pick 11

Maybe history is about to repeat itself in 24 and hopefully we get lucky. 

Culpepper wasn't a great QB without Moss and Carter, as well as the great offensive line he had. He also had a gifted OC.
Some teams seem to believe they need to build a roster, then add a QB as the missing piece. Others believe they need to get the QB, then build around him. I believe in the latter, but you better at least have protection for him or you may ruin him. They all need time to learn. They all tend to hold the ball at first because it takes time to learn. The greatest seasons of many hall of fame QB's come later in their careers for a reason.
I think you pay Cousins because he is as good now as he has ever been.
Which also means taking a QB at 11 you believe in, to learn behind him could be a good strategy. But you have to go after the one QB you truly believe in and not accept leftovers. If you have to move up, you do it!

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"jargomcfargo" said:

@"purplefaithful" said: Last time we drafted a QB with a #1 pick was Culpepper 

Pick 11

Maybe history is about to repeat itself in 24 and hopefully we get lucky. 

Culpepper wasn't a great QB without Moss and Carter, as well as the great offensive line he had. He also had a gifted OC.
Some teams seem to believe they need to build a roster, then add a QB as the missing piece. Others believe they need to get the QB, then build around him. I believe in the latter, but you better at least have protection for him or you may ruin him. They all need time to learn. They all tend to hold the ball at first because it takes time to learn. The greatest seasons of many hall of fame QB's come later in their careers for a reason.
I think you pay Cousins because he is as good now as he has ever been.
Which also means taking a QB at 11 you believe in, to learn behind him could be a good strategy. But you have to go after the one QB you truly believe in and not accept leftovers. If you have to move up, you do it!

Agree about Cousins, but I will say that Culpepper's best season by far was 2004, when he was MVP runner up to Peyton Manning. Cris Carter wasn't on the team then and Moss was banged up all year. Culpepper spread the ball around to a dozen different receivers. Burleson was actually our leading receiver that year.