By virtually every account, Kyler Murray will be the first quarterback drafted next week, most likely at No. 1 overall to the Arizona Cardinals. After that, it's anyone's guess as to who the next quarterback taken will be. Daniel Jones (pictured), Dwayne Haskins and Drew Lock are all possibilities.
What are the odds that that quarterback -- the No. 2 guy -- will turn out to be better than Murray? What area the odds that he'll be any good at all? I thought I'd see what answer the last 20 years might provide.
Based on drafts since 2000, that fall-back plan has generally been disappointing. By my estimation, only three times (out of 19) has that second quarterback selected turned out better than the first one. Only five other times (maybe six or seven, if you want to be more generous than me, but I signed off on Leftwich) has that second quarterback turned out to be any good at all. Seven times we can say for certain that the guy has been a flat-out bust.
I think teams are getting better at evaluating and developing quarterbacks. Look at the last four-five years, and (although it's early) all of those first and second quarterbacks have shown some ability to play. I'm not sure any of them can or should be called busts. Certainly not of the Johnny Manziel-Brady Quinn ilk, anyway.
In the table, second quarterbacks who are in bold have turned out better than the first one selected (I'm calling Trubisky-Mahomes right now). Second quarterbacks in italics turned out pretty good (I'm calling Wentz, not ready to sign off on Darnold). The rest are all pretty forgettable.
|QUARTERBACKS, FIRST TWO DRAFTED, 2000-2018|
|2012||1||2||Robert Griffin III|
So the 20-year history of second quarterbacks drafted isn't great, but the recent history is more promising. Recent draft chatter suggests it might be Daniel Jones as the next guy off the board, although Dwayne Haskins is another possibility (depending on the team, and who you want to believe).
In less than a week, we won't have to speculate anymore; we'll know.