RW and PFF Foundation Draft

So PFF, for better or worse, produced a "foundation draft" which is a fictional exercise in which the league was starting from scratch today, and everyone in the world was eligible to be drafted. Age counts, contracts don't (no cap). Players can be soured from any sport.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/ne...aft-who-would-you-choose-to-start-a-franchise

The first players picked were QBs. Rodgers, Luck, then Wilson. The next 9 were also existing NFL QBs.

What is interesting is not that QBs were drafted first, but that there were only 12 NFL QBs worth drafting before the first college QB. At #16, the first non-QB is taken. That leaves more than half the league starting quarterbacks who didn't merit selection before players not even in the NFL or who aren't QBs.

From time to time there's a bit of loose talk about trading this player or that player, and from time to time that player is Wilson. Yes, he's an asset and we could get quite a lot by trading him. However, he's effectively the third most valuable NFL player in the world in a league where half the teams don't have a guy worth considering. There's no way you let someone like that walk, or trade him for a bag of magic beans.

Just a bit of perspective I found interesting.

How do people still think Luck is better than Wilson?

Trrrroy":16k5k28k said:

How do people still think Luck is better than Wilson?

Click to expand...

Don't know why. Almost every stat other than passing yards, I think, Wilson leads. It's not even close. The only thing I can say in Luck's favor is that it's the colts fault, not his, for the lack of success.

Trrrroy":nbwhy6ho said:

How do people still think Luck is better than Wilson?

Click to expand...

Colts fans will argue that Wilson has had a better supporting cast.

While I don't necessarily disagree with that point, I do disagree when they start saying they're not even on the same level. If Luck were our QB, he'd still be having issues with his o line

Trrrroy":1v1r015x said:

How do people still think Luck is better than Wilson?

Click to expand...

Some people have a hard time admitting they were wrong after "going all in" on a guy.

I'm sure Jaws will still say he was right about the Kraepper as well.

The Wilson vs Luck argument is the same as the Brady vs Manning argument. Brady was on the better team and Manning was the better thrower.

And who cares who is better? I'm glad we have Wilson, I'm sure they are glad they have Luck. The worship for Luck gets old, but not as old as the excuses for why Wilson has been so damn good, and CLUTCH.
Meh

Point is to keep this stuff in mind when we go into the next contract with Wilson. Having the the 2nd/3rd-best NFL player in the world costs a lot of money, but while we bask in the luxury of having such a rare player, there is over half the league who can barely find a warm body to fill the position and would pay dearly for our guy.

We can debate if it's right or wrong and debate the reasons for why it's the case, but Luck isn't treated as being a higher long-term prospect than Wilson (and he isn't always, let's be fair) because of where they were drafted or the hype on Luck before he came out.

Largely because of the teams their on, Luck gets grouped with Rodgers, Brady, and Brees because the entire offense flows through him. He is *the guy* that makes his offense go. Like Rodgers he also has a skill set that you can drop into literally and offense you want and not have to worry about.

For better or for worse, the Seahawks offense flowed through their running game (not Wilson) until last year, and when it flowed through Wilson last year it wasn't nearly as effective. Sure that could be because of injury, but the only time Wilson has really been cast the *the guy* in his offense it didn't work out too well, which is why the JS/PC have been adamant all off-season that they're ending that experiment and getting back to be a run first team.

If your QB is *the guy* and your entire offense flows through him, that also means that defenses are entirely oriented toward stopping him, and just letting the run game happen (see the way defenses play the Colts, Packers, Patriots, and Saints, but not the Seahawks -- those other teams don't ever see 8 man boxes and the Seahawks see them pretty regularly, because their offense flows through the run game). If you're *the guy* your completion percentage should be lower, your int % should be higher, and so on because the entire defensive gameplan is to sell out to stop you.

Lastly, I think there's also some recency bias. I know all about his injuries last year and everything last year but if you just look at the numbers he put up last year as *the guy* it is a completely fair statement to say "sure, he's good like Ryan Tannehill is good (they put up almost exactly the same numbers), but he's no Sam Bradford"

It doesn't take anything away from Wilson, who is a great, great, great player and if he keeps it up is a legitimate HoF contender for sure, but like Dak, Big Ben, Matt Ryan, and so on the entire offense isn't just on him. Unless he succeeds in that position people -- even if they believe he can succeed in that position! -- are forced to imagine him doing so rather than having already gotten to see it for themselves.

When Luck was injured and sat out games the Colt offense still flowed just fine. When Russell had multiple injuries we couldn't sit him for a series. Quantify that please.

brimsalabim":22iumzbh said:

When Luck was injured and sat out games the Colt offense still flowed just fine. When Russell had multiple injuries we couldn't sit him for a series. Quantify that please.

Click to expand...

We don't know that for sure. If Wilson sat out the Rams and 49er games last year I bet the team would still go 1-1 in those games. Boykin was never given a chance.

sdog1981":2vm6isic said:

brimsalabim":2vm6isic said:

When Luck was injured and sat out games the Colt offense still flowed just fine. When Russell had multiple injuries we couldn't sit him for a series. Quantify that please.

Click to expand...

We don't know that for sure. If Wilson sat out the Rams and 49er games last year I bet the team would still go 1-1 in those games. Boykin was never given a chance.

Click to expand...

Suppose maybe there was a reason for that?

That is what I was saying that we the general public don't know that the team would fall apart if Wilson did not start those two games after he got hurt. He started the Rams game and the team lost anyway. How would this team look if Wilson takes the Rams game off and is a little more healthy for the 49ers game, Would he have avoided injury that game? Now that we are a good six months later from the 2016 season I think the story of that season is what if they started Boykin after Wilson got hurt.

brimsalabim":ymmp6lpp said:

When Luck was injured and sat out games the Colt offense still flowed just fine.

Click to expand...

No it didn't. It was measurably worse in PPG, and the passing numbers in particular were down.

brimsalabm":ymmp6lpp said:

When Russell had multiple injuries we couldn't sit him for a series. Quantify that please.

Click to expand...

To quantify that you'd have to put "Very Smart" to "Very Stupid" on a 7 point scale with 1 being "Very Smart" and 7 being "Very Stupid".

So, here we go:

I'd give a Super Bowl contending team deciding to roll with an UDFA as a #2 QB about a 6.

I'd give not letting Wilson have some time to rest after his injuries started piling on top of other injuries a 5 or so.

You know what offense is always good and flows just fine when their qb is hurt? The Patriots.

Brady is really really good. Nobody in the world can deny that. He is kinda the Emmitt Smith of quarterbacks though

Smellyman":28nld46q said:

You know what offense is always good and flows just fine when their qb is hurt? The Patriots.

Brady is really really good. Nobody in the world can deny that. He is kinda the Emmitt Smith of quarterbacks though

Click to expand...

Yeah, I really do think there's a lot of validity to this. I mean, the Patriots passing game DOES take a hit when Brady has been out, but I do think the story of "The best QB of all time was a 6th round pick!!!" definitely overlooks the fact that other non-first round picks are ALSO able to get into that system and excel.

This is a fancy way to say that as a player I think Brady is very, very good, but also a bit overrated.

To be fair I've been saying the same thing forever about Joe Montana and Steve Young. When they were playing they had the benefit of working within a MAJOR offensive innovation that defenses hadn't figured out how to stop yet. It's no wonder that a 3rd round pick (Montana), and a backup QB that was traded from the Bucs (Young) were back-to-back the best QBs in the NFL. Then you throw in that even really marginal players like Elvis Grbac and Steve Bono also succeeded in that system, and I think the implication is pretty clear: In the NFL amazing schemes way too regularly get misidentified as the talent of the players that benefit from them and fit into them.

There's just simply not a lot of guys who can maintain the same level of play regardless of scheme. It's one of the things that makes guys like Patrick Peterson, Andrew Luck, Golden Tate and so on really underrated in my opinion. None of these guys are thought of as being the best at their position, but you really don't have to scheme for them at all.

Smellyman":1wnqltmc said:

You know what offense is always good and flows just fine when their qb is hurt? The Patriots.

Brady is really really good. Nobody in the world can deny that. He is kinda the Emmitt Smith of quarterbacks though

Click to expand...

Great point, last year NE beat a healthy Cardinals team with the backup. They then beat the texans with the backups backup..... Bradys overrated....lol

brimsalabim":lhefv6i7 said:

When Luck was injured and sat out games the Colt offense still flowed just fine. When Russell had multiple injuries we couldn't sit him for a series. Quantify that please.

Click to expand...

Colts have a better backup QB?

mikeak":22ibtvun said:

brimsalabim":22ibtvun said:

When Luck was injured and sat out games the Colt offense still flowed just fine. When Russell had multiple injuries we couldn't sit him for a series. Quantify that please.

Click to expand...

Colts have a better backup QB?

Click to expand...

Boykin / Hasselbeck hmmmm one has a few snaps the other a Super Bowl starting QB, kind of like comparing Apples to Watermelons.