I will answer. The answers are:
How likely is it that Haskins is the best player available(regardless of position) in range 10-13?
Yes, Haskins is the best player at 13. Haskins is a #1 overall player in this draft and any draft! That is because Haskins is an elite quarterback. He is not the only elite quarterback in this draft. Every elite quarterback is a #1 overall, better than all other prospects.
The reason for that is the purpose of the game, winning, something Chris Grier knows nothing about -- the guy who wants to tank, who fails on his duties, who cannot draft a QB, who is losing culture leader, who does not get it.
To win, you have to roll on offense, have an efficient consistent offense, and to do that, you need an efficient consistent quarterback. Cannot do it without that.
And to win you need to stop the opponent, have a defense that gives the ball to your efficient and consistent offense. That's why an elite DC is required. He will get it done.
That's why in a rebuild, the first things are QB, and the DC! And you do everything and anything to get it done.
Are Haskins and Rosen close enough in terms of talent that you'd consider passing on Haskins at 13 if you could get Rosen for a 2nd?
No, Rosen and Haskins are not close. Rosen is undraftable, and Haskins is a #1 overall elite quarterback type.
There is an abyss between elite-quarterback prospects and the second tier prospects. An abyss of 7 rounds.
Rosen is not an efficient consistent quarterback, he is not elite, he does not check the boxes, and in the NFL nobody needs him! Nobody needs a bad quarterback. Because we want to win, and for that we need an efficient consistent quarterback, an elite quarterback. And that is Haskins. There is an abyss between the two.
Haskins fulfills the critical role of the whole point of playing, which is winning. Rosen does not, Rosen's role is to fk around, which is nowhere near winning. It's a complete miss.
Extra: How do you get an elite quarterback?
You either draft a phenom or you train them for years. Nobody wants to waste year. You only train bad quarterbacks if you must. You want to draft the phenom, at all cost, if you can, if one is available.
However, good colleges like Alabama and Ohio State for example, train quarterbacks for a couple of year, to play in their system, to throw their routes, to execute their reads. And when they monitor them on whether they are ready, whether they are consistent, efficient, leaders, competitors, and they pick the best one to start. Or, if they recruit a phenom, who is better out of the gate, than that guy starts.
Same thing in the NFL. You draft a phenom, always, and you should always be training backups. Rosen can be a backup. Haskins is a phenom. Quarterbacks are graded on performance, competitiveness, leadership. That's how you know.
Performance: Stats, completion percentage, TDs, INTs, Sacks, yards, big arm, prototype frame, throws all over the field, and all kinds of routes, from the pocket and outside the pocket, athleticism, pocket movement, scrambling, rushing, four minute offense, two minute offense.
Competitiveness: Wins, Close scores in losses, third down situations, come backs, drives off turnovers, fourth down conversions.
Leadership: all about football, is on time, studies and has gained knowledge and experience, trains, comes early leaves late, takes charge, is responsible, his head is on the chopping block when things go wrong -- meaning he carries the team.
In the end, all this can be summed up in the STATS except arm, frame, athleticism which is FILM. The mantra is do your job and that is contained in the final stats and film.
Rosen is nowhere near in performance, competitiveness, leadership. He does nto fulfill the point of playing football.
If you listen to Haskins interviews, you will hear that he needed to become a better leader this, since he was a backup previously. And he did that. Competitiveness and Performance were never an issue. He is addressing the red flag of leadership, he was one year starter.
If you listen to Lock, he talks about turmoil of coaches at Missouri. He is addressing a red flag of consistency and efficiency, he did not the benefit to train in one system over his career.
Nonetheless, the three quarterbacks, Murray, Haskins, Lock, are elite. Rosen is not. Rosen even after three years of starting did not achieve the level of performance, competitiveness, leadership the other to have.
The difference is an abyss. Nick Mullens and Jake Rudock are better than Rosen. Nobody needs a Rosen. Teams needs phenoms.
