How many QBs will be taken in the first 5 Picks?
 

The more I think about it, the more likely it seems to me that 4 QBs will be taken in the first five picks. I'm interested in everyone else's thinking on this. Here's my rationale:

1. Cleveland - Virtually certain to be a QB. As others have pointed out, it makes no sense to take anything else here, since whatever non-QB they want will likely be available at pick 4 anyway. So might as well get your pick of the QB litter here. Now, I realize it's Cleveland we're talking about, but they have competent management now.

2. New York Giants - I'm finding it hard to believe they'll take a non-QB here. Aside from Eli's age and declining production, as a practical matter I have to think that the Jets tried to trade into this spot at the same time as they spoke with the Colts (wouldn't they have to?). If the Giants weren't willing to drop to #6 in exchange for three 2nds (or maybe even more), then it seems likely that they have zeroed in on a particular player/position and are loathe to drop lower out of fear that he won't be available later. And it's just hard to believe that protecting their right to draft a RB or a DE would justify such a position (particularly since they hadn't yet traded Jason Pierre-Paul at the time).

3. New York Jets - Virtually certain to be QB. The Jets need a QB, and nobody pays that kind of extreme draft price to move up 3 spots for anything but a QB.

4. Cleveland - Obviously won't be a QB if Cleveland keeps this pick. In that case, they could take Barkley (though they already paid good money for Hyde this off season, suggesting to me they aren't targeting a RB high in the draft - it's not like you want a rookie RB to sit and learn) or Chubb (though they've already got two good DEs in Garrett and Nassib). I think a more likely scenario is that with 3 of the top 4 QBs already taken, and with Denver waiting right behind, several teams will approach Cleveland with attractive trade offers to grab the last QB and Cleveland will trade out.

5. Denver - If any of the first four picks is not a QB, this is a likely landing spot for the last of the top 4 QB prospects. Denver could certainly use a top QB prospect to learn under Case Keenum, and none of the other top players really seem to fit Denver's needs (maybe Quenton Nelson? possibly Barkley?) -so if Denver doesn't take a QB, I think its another spot where another team could seek to trade into.

Interested in other's thoughts on this.

This is exactly the thought process that led me to believe 4 QBs would go in the Top 5 when the Colts traded down to 6. It'll be 4 QBs and Barkley, and the Colts will send the card for Chubb almost immediately, I doubt Ballard even waits for trade offers with his guy sitting there for the taking.

4. Buffalo will move up to 4th and you’ll see QBs at 1, 3, 4, and 5.

Regarding the Giants at #2, I heard that Gettleman has never traded down from one of his 1st rounders. While I think it’s foolish to stay put and take a non-QB, that might be what he does.

Certainly possible, but we know Ballard isn't so enthralled with Chubb that he wasn't willing to trade down and reduce the chance that he would get him. This fuels the theory that he might not even take Chubb if he's available. Then again, he was paid a king's ransom to move down a few spots, so maybe it was worth the risk even if he loves the Chubb. Either way, I don't see Ballard as a "turn in the card right away" kind of guy - I think he'll see what's out there trade-wise before selecting his player.

Interesting. If I was a Giants fan, this kind of thing wouldn't make me happy. A GM needs to be open minded.

I’m not convinced Chubb is “Ballard’s Guy”. If he was I don’t see the trade back. That doesn’t mean he won’t take him if he’s there. It just means I think he’s simply one of 4 non QBs Ballard is comfortable with. And I don’t think we have any idea of the order of those players. I think us fans are more enamored with Chubb than Ballard is.

They would be fools to not try to get another franchise passer to take over for a 37 year old Eli.

Agree. Ballard is smart enough and disciplined enough to not be in love with any one player, especially to the point of ignoring a great trade opportunity. I think he is comfortable with a couple players at 6 and knows at least one will be there so it was an easy decision for him to trade back to 6.

I think he also knows the importance of getting top level players and will stay at 6 unless some crazy offer comes in last minute.

This is pretty much how I see it as well. I don't pretend to be any sort of talent evaluator and will freely admit that most of my player opinions derive from reading what other (seemingly more technically knowledgeable) people have written about a given player's skill set. What I think is more telling, however, are the GMs' actions, and Ballard's actions in my view are largely consistent with what you've written here.

Agreed, Chaka.

I think that is highly probably that 4 QBs will be taken in the top 5 and that it is possible (but unlikely) that all 5 top picks will be QB.

I see it very possible that someone will want to trade into the #4 spot for QB so that CLE may not pick there. If someone does, then it will be for QB.

DEN is actually the wildcard in my thinking. If 4 QBs are already off the board and the one who is left is actually their #5 guy, then I could see them going with the best non-QB pick whomever that is in their book.

But, I think the top 4 picks will be QB because I think the package soemone will offer CLE for #4 will be too good to pass up.

Which then, hopefully, gives us our pick of whomever of the top non-QBs we like or the ability to drop a spot or two to get another 2nd round pick by being willing to "give up" on Barkley or Chubb. Trading down to 7 or 8 or 9 would not be the end of the world and still able to get one of Chubb, Nelson, Barkley or Edmunds/Smith. Or Fitzpatrick. Or the CB.

Draft day is going to be wild.

Walk Worthy,

That's called smart GMing, reading the field, and being willing to take calculated, intelligent risks. The first five picks are:

1) Cleveland Browns
2) New York Giants
3) New York Jets
4) Cleveland Browns
5) Denver Broncos

The common thread of these teams is they ALL need a franchise QB. Cleveland has had a void there since coming back into existence, Eli Manning is 37, the Jets best QB in recent memory is Chad Pennington, and the Broncos have been on the hunt to replace Peyton for four years now. Of course, Cleveland has 2 top 5 picks, but they're also enamored with Saquon Barkley and they just invested in DE. If they don't trade down, Barkley or Fitzpatrick is their pick at 4. Let's say they do trade down, though, say Buffalo gives them enough that they pull the trigger, and Buffalo gets QB4, leaving Denver on the outside looking in. Denver isn't going to draft Chubb, they have two first round picks at the position and a solid player in Shaquil Barrett. They likely take Nelson, Fitzpatrick, or Smith. Any way you look at it, the first team in the draft whose foremost need is a premier pass rusher is still the Colts. Ballard knows he needs a top pass rusher and knows this is his spot to get one, but he's smart enough to know where he needs to be to accomplish that as well. He traded to the lowest spot he could while still being reasonably assured he'd get Chubb (Tampa will take him at 7 if he's still there) and got a lot of value out of the deal. This was smart dealmaking and smart team building by Ballard.

Agreed Denver's something of a wild card. Peter King wrote this morning that a "friend" of Cleveland GM Dorsey says the Browns want to take Barkley at #4. If this is true, Cleveland should try to trade down with Denver, so they can pick up Barkley at #5 - that would be a real coup for them.

As far as the number of QBs, five would be a real shock, but who knows? Maybe the QB-less teams will panic. If the Colts want to take someone at #6 (rather than trade down further), that would be a dream scenario. This will be a fun draft to watch.

Agree with you on the apparent motivations of each of these teams, and I certainly agree that Ballard is taking a calculated risk by trading down (whether he's targeting Chubb or someone else). The Giants could conceivably be interested in Chubb given their recent trade of JPP but, as I mentioned above, I just can't see them holding on the #2 pick in the face of a Jets-like offer unless they are targeting a QB (or, I suppose, if they have reason to believe that another team will top the offer)

Amen

The Giants reportedly want Sam Darnold. If he is there they will likely take him. If he isn't they will trade or likely take Chubb or Barkley. Barkley for instant impact or Chubb as the best overal defensive player. Now if they want more of an EDGE I can see them taking OO from oklahoma in the second.

Overall I think dues to trades and teams moving I think 4 QB's are going in the top 6.

Not sure if my comment came off as a criticism of Ballard, but it certainly wasn’t meant to be. I don’t at all agree with his work in free agency, but that doesn’t mean I dislike him completely or disagree with everything he is doing. The trade back was a great move IMO whether Chubb makes it to 6 or not. I’m just not nearly as convinced as you seem to be that 1) Chubb will make it to 6, or 2) that he is Ballard’s guy and ultimate target. I simply think Ballard has a top tier of 4 players and he will gladly take any of them. Or move back if someone offers enough value to do so. I don’t at all believe he is married to any specific player. Not enough for them to be considered “Ballard’s guy”. Which to me is smart - especially considering I think he is looking long term in the rebuild. I don’t believe he feels he has to have a pass rusher next year because I think he knows the roster isn’t going to contend next year anyway. He will take whomever he thinks will ultimately be the best player. Which is why I think Edmunds may very well be the mystery 4th player. And to me, whoever that mystery player is should be considered “Ballard’s guy” as it appears he’s elevated them in to the top tier along with the consensus big 3 - Barkley, Chubb, and Nelson.

This is why I’m not convinced 4 or more QBs will go in the top 5. It depends on how the teams evaluate them and how they come off the board. Would you trade significant draft capital for the 4th rated QB on your board? Sounds like a damn good way to get fired if you ask me. Denver is a prime example. Yes they need a QB for the long by haul but do you really think they have a top half first round grade on 4-5 of these QBs? I don’t. They will take one if a guy they rank highly is there, but they aren’t going to grab whatever is leftover just because fans and media think they should. And someone trading up is the same if not worse. It’s possible they fall in a way that everyone gets a guy they believe in, but I don’t see GMs staking their jobs on a move up for their 4th or 5th choice.

But here's the rub - not everyone agrees who the 4th or 5th QB choice is. For example, if Baker Mayfield is left after 3 other QBs have been taken, it's likely that someone has him more highly rated on their board. Hence, while you're correct that Denver might not take him if they don't view him as elite, someone else (or several someone elses) might be willing to trade into Denver's slot to grab him. And they'll think they got a bargain for doing so. Without a trade, I'd agree that 4 QBs being taken in the first five is unlikely. But there's nearly always a trade when QBs are up for grabs, so I don't think that a no-trade scenario is likely.

By way of example, the Jets just traded significant draft capital to the Colts just for the opportunity to take whoever is left after the first two picks have been selected. And they don't even know who they might get to choose from. These QB-needy teams are desperate, and I think the success of last year's QB crop is fueling this somewhat

As you just mentioned, there has already been a trade (Jets and Colts) so it's not a no-trade scenario anymore. There is definitely a chance of there being another one on draft day though.

I agree the fact there doesn’t seem to be any consensus about the top QBs could mean everyone finds the right fit in the top 5, I just don’t see it as the most likely scenario. I’d bet on 3 QBs taken in the top 5. I see 4 unlikely but plausible. And I see 5 as completely unlikely.

Barkley is supposedly a generational talent and the consensus best player in the draft. Nelson is supposedly as sure a prospect as you will find at a time where oline play is considered subpar across the league. And Chubb is a top talent at the 2nd most important position in the league at a time when no pass rushers were available in free agency and the positional talent in the draft is considered low. Any team moving back at this point likely misses out on those players since teams drafting 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 don’t need QBs. Can it happen? Sure. But to me that’s a lot to come together for 4 or 5 QBs to go when none are really considered elite prospects.

I can't see Edmunds being the 4th guy, I might have him as the 4th best LB. I know his measurables are off the charts, but his tape shows a stiff hipped two down thumper who will struggle to cover NFL TEs. I could've watched the four worst games of his career, but that's unlikely, and he consistently displayed those traits in every game. The tape is why I'm so high on Chubb. No other defender in this class that I've seen to date has the ability to dominate and take over a game, where he does.

That's not how it works though. Teams like certain QB's over others due to their system and personality. I think the knocks on Rosen are overblown. I think the Jets like him and he will fall there. I think the Browns like Allen and Darnold. I think the Giants like Darnold. I also think a few teams covet Baker Mayfield, teams that might be willing to trade up.

Teams don't rank the QB's the same, they identify a guy they like best then they try to maneuver up for him. I think Allen or Mayfield will make it to 5 or 6 and some team will want them.

I understand and concede that in this group the extreme lack of consensus means it’s possible everyone finds the right fit. Teams won’t rank them the same. As I’ve said, I just don’t see it as likely. To me that’s a lot of things falling together. And if I was Buffalo I’d see how the top 5 shakes out and then only worry about leaping over Miami at 11. Will be a lot cheaper. We’ll see. It will be interesting either way and I’d be happy to be wrong.

I don’t watch much college ball and I certainly don’t break down game tape so admittedly my knowledge of the players in the draft is primarily limited to other people’s scouting reports. I see Edmunds as the possible 4th player only because of the sky high potential most reports rave about with him and my belief Ballard is taking a longer term view for building the roster. I have no idea if that potential is real or not. Personally from my limited knowledge I’d prefer Chubb as well.

If he's taking the long approach it might be Edmunds. I didn't know he was 19, his poor coverage makes a lot more sense in the context of him having no clue what the hell he was doing, as does so many people ranking him so highly. That said, I think Fitzpatrick is that 4th guy. He's a quick to react, an enforcer and a ballhawk in the secondary, has the cover skills of a corner and the run support of a linebacker. Putting he and Hooker in the same backfield would make throwing the ball very hard on opposing QBs.

I'm don't think I'm a cynical person, but I"ll admit that I'm always a bit suspicious when a team mentions that they have a "mystery" draft candidate. Seems like a convenient excuse if their preferred draftees are already taken - the team can always say that the person they ended up selecting instead was the mystery candidate they wanted all along.

If Buffalo waits until after the 5th pick it may be too late. Even if a QB makes it to the Colts pick, last year showed that teams in Buffalo's position cannot sit back and wait for their preferred candidate to come to them - a lower drafting team can always leapfrog over them to snatch the player away. If there's a QB that you want, you need to move aggressively.

Their is something to be said for being aggressive, but I can point to case after case of teams being stupid and wasting draft capital on an unworthy candidate. More than I can point to teams moving up and getting their guy working out. Especially with QBs. Maybe I underestimate how desperate these teams are for a QB - any QB. I see more quantity than quality. Which to me says don’t overpay. For fans and the media it seems the quantity has created a sort of feeding frenzy where everyone HAS to come away with a QB and whoever doesn’t lost and is doomed. We’ll see if the GMs actually fall into that same mentality.

All I'd say in response to this is that neither RB nor OG are currently highly valued positions in the NFL, so while these guys are very highly rated I'm not sure that will translate to a top 5 pick (I'll concede maybe Barkley, particularly since Cleveland presumably won't need a QB at #4).

QB, by contrast, has always been the most coveted position, so I think teams are more willing to reach on a good QB - particularly since it has largely worked out well for teams drafting QBs high in the first round over the last few years even though none of the QBs were generational talents like Luck was touted to be when he was drafted. The Cardinals got screwed last year when KC and Houston jumped in front of them to draft QBs, so Buffalo will need to keep this in mind if they decide not to trade up.

All of this is just my guess as to what's going through the teams' minds, and you may certainly be right and only 3 QBs will be taken - in fact, that's what I would have told you I thought would happen if you'd asked me last week. It's just that when I started looking more closely, it seems like the playing board is set up well for 4 QBs to be taken. As Dam highlighted in his post, every one of the top five teams needs a QB. And there are others lingering not far behind (Miami, Buffalo) who have every reason to think hard about trading up. The Colts-Jets trade has only served to intensify this pressure.

The Colts, for their part, are looking at it conservatively and are only willing to assume that two QBs will be drafted in front of them.

What about Derwin James, who is rising again. Bigger, faster, and perhaps even more versatile. What about James at WILL? Starting to see mocks that have James going ahead of Fitzpatrick now.

I don't know who the hell this guy is, but he has 4 QBs in the top 5

https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/sta...82411334127616

McShay's is on there too. He has the Dolphins trading with us and has us taking Derwin James

Who the hell is Mel Kiper?!?

PFF's latest mock is much worse than that.

I like any mock draft that has LVE making it to Round 2.

Saw Mayfield’s name and immediately closed the page like it might infect my phone.

PFF only goes by their rating system. So it's useless as a predictor.

Just revisiting this issue now that the draft is only a couple days away.

Assuming a trade down is Ballard's goal (and I'm becoming increasing convinced that it is), the best case scenario for the Colts would be to have three QBs to be selected before pick 6. Any more, and the Colts will have virtually no leverage since few teams will pay a significant bounty to move up for a non-QB. If less are picked, other teams won't feel as much pressure to pay the Colts' price since they know that at least one QB will still be available after pick 6. So three QBs in the top five is the sweet spot for a trade down.

I still think there's a decent chance 4 QBs go in the top 5, although that scenario would almost certainly involve another team trading into the top 5.

Just curious, have you seen ant tape on Landry from BC, he led the nation in sacks two years ago and Im surprised he is not higher on peoples draft boards.