Year of the QB

[detlef]

Since you want to use 10 years for obvious reasons, let me make a couple of lists. The first are names of some QBs drafted in rounds 1/2 in those 10 years, the other list are some of the guys drafted after round 2. Then you tell me which list you would rather pick a QB from:

 

Rds 1/2

 

Pat White

Brian Brohm

JaMarcus Russell

Brady Quinn

John Beck

Drew Stanton

Matt Leinart

Kellen Clemens

JP Losman

Kyle Boller

David Carr

Joey Harrington

Patrick Ramsey

Quincey Carter

Marquis Tuiasosopo

 

After Rd 2

 

Josh Johnson

Matt Flynn

Trent Edwards

Tyler Thigpen

Charlie Whitehurst

Derek Anderson

Matt Cassell

Ryan Fitzpatrick

Matt Schaub

David Garrard

 

Now after you choose which list you like better, tell me one one required more initial cost & risk.

You mean, would I rather pick from the biggest busts of the first two rounds vs the biggest success stories of the later rounds?

 

Well, let me think about that for a second. OK, I've got your answer. That's a freaking dumb question.

 

But, your point is taken. If you take away every good QB from the 1st and 2nd round, that's a pretty motley looking crew.

 

What's funnier still, is that, despite cherry picking the best of the late rounders and the worst of the early rounders, that list of late rounders is still only OK. You've got guys who have been spot starters and one year wonders. Guys who are still back-ups, and a few good but certainly not quite elite starting QBs. And that's best of the best that you combed out of the rest to try and make a point.

Edited April 18, 2011 by detlef

[Bronco Billy]

You mean, would I rather pick from the biggest busts of the first two rounds vs the biggest success stories of the later rounds?

 

Well, let me think about that for a second. OK, I've got your answer. That's a freaking dumb question.

 

But, your point is taken. If you take away every good QB from the 1st and 2nd round, that's a pretty motley looking crew.

 

Thanks for completely missing the point again. You are consistent.

 

Oooh - Bronco Billy posted something. I have no clue what he's talking about but I've just got to post something and rip him. Take THAT Bronco Billy!

 

Edited April 18, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[detlef]

Thanks for completely missing the point again. You are consistent.

The point Seahawks made was, the last 10 years have shown us that, if you want a good QB, you'd better be ready to use an early pick. And the data surely backs that up because nearly every good QB in the league was a 2nd rounder or better.

 

And merely showing that there have been some early round busts as well as some nice surprises from the later rounds does nothing to refute that.

[MustOfBeenDrunk]

You mean, would I rather pick from the biggest busts of the first two rounds vs the biggest success stories of the later rounds?

 

Well, let me think about that for a second. OK, I've got your answer. That's a freaking dumb question.

 

But, your point is taken. If you take away every good QB from the 1st and 2nd round, that's a pretty motley looking crew.

 

What's funnier still, is that, despite cherry picking the best of the late rounders and the worst of the early rounders, that list of late rounders is still only OK. You've got guys who have been spot starters and one year wonders. Guys who are still back-ups, and a few good but certainly not quite elite starting QBs. And that's best of the best that you combed out of the rest to try and make a point.

 

 

The point is they don't wear a sign around their necks saying BUST on draft day ,,, some scouts actually thought they were 1st & 2nd round worthy

[detlef]

The point is they don't wear a sign around their necks saying BUST on draft day ,,, some scouts actually thought they were 1st & 2nd round worthy

So the point that Bronco is trying to make is that not everyone we think will be good turns out to be good? Really? That's it? Great, I kind of figured that's a given.

 

None the less, that doesn't change Seahawks initial point that, the theory of avoiding early QBs and waiting on the late-round gem isn't holding much water these days as illustrated by the fact that nearly every good QB drafted in the last 10 years came from the early rounds.

 

I'm pretty sure he didn't intend to imply that taking one early is any assurance of landing a good one, nor that you simply will not find one late.

 

Of course, that's a much easier argument to refute, so I can see why Bronco went that way.

[Bronco Billy]

The point Seahawks made was, the last 10 years have shown us that, if you want a good QB, you'd better be ready to use an early pick. And the data surely backs that up because nearly every good QB in the league was a 2nd rounder or better.

 

And merely showing that there have been some early round busts as well as some nice surprises from the later rounds does nothing to refute that.

 

Hey, Einstein. If NFL guys are looking for a franchise QB, they don't wait until the 4th round to draft them - they burn a 1st rounder on him. If they are looking for a sure starter who may not be studly, they draft him in the 2nd round. Anything after that, they are looking for a trainable guy who might develop into quality depth with some hope he could end up starting.

 

Duh. That's tough to figure, huh? Thanks to you & Seahawks for illuminating the overwhelmingly obvious.

 

But look at the guys that NFL experts thought would be franchise players or years-long capable starters and then look at guys drafted well after them that teams had to spend a lot less money and time on. The point you missed so completely is that just because a team drafts a QB high is no guarantee of success, that quality QBs can be found later in the draft, and that when a team misses on a 1st/2nd round QB they don't get any value - unlike other positions where guys can play special teams/play specialty roles/etc and so the capital/time/value lost when missing on a QB is very much higher.

 

The risks are so much bigger and so the losses are so much bigger with 1st/2nd round QBs, as opposed to when teams draft lower round guys as QBs and some turn into solid contributors and at least reliable depth with upside - which is exactly what the teams drafting them at that point were looking for.

[Bronco Billy]

The point is they don't wear a sign around their necks saying BUST on draft day ,,, some scouts actually thought they were 1st & 2nd round worthy

 

And that is the overwhelmingly obvious point that somehow eludes det & seahawks.

[detlef]

Hey, Einstein. If NFL guys are looking for a franchise QB, they don't wait until the 4th round to draft them - they burn a 1st rounder on him. If they are looking for a sure starter who may not be studly, they draft him in the 2nd round. Anything after that, they are looking for a trainable guy who might develop into quality depth with some hope he could end up starting.

 

Duh. That's tough to figure, huh? Thanks to you & Seahawks for illuminating the overwhelmingly obvious.

 

But look at the guys that NFL experts thought would be franchise players or years-long capable starters and then look at guys drafted well after them that teams had to spend a lot less money and time on. The point you missed so completely is that just because a team drafts a QB high is no guarantee of success, that quality QBs can be found later in the draft, and that when a team misses on a 1st/2nd round QB they don't get any value - unlike other positions where guys can play special teams/play specialty roles/etc and so the capital/time/value lost when missing on a QB is very much higher.

 

The risks are so much bigger and so the losses are so much bigger with 1st/2nd round QBs, as opposed to when teams draft lower round guys as QBs and some turn into solid contributors and at least reliable depth with upside - which is exactly what the teams drafting them at that point were looking for.

Me thinks you should go back and read the first post in this thread. "Give me an O-lineman early and a QB late every time". That's what got this whole thread started.

 

Regardless, the point was made that, if you want to get a good QB, you'd better be ready to bite the bullet and take your chances on a pricey early rounder. You seemed to take exception with that remark, so forgive me if I took you on your word.

 

The funny thing is, what you seem to be implying is stupidly obvious is actually rather contrary to what as been popular opinion for some time. That QB was the hardest position to scout and, thus, was one that perhaps you should wait on. Grab a physical freak at a position where that is a more accurate predictor and try and land a Tom Brady or Joe Montana or even Matt Schaub late. So, actually, I find the fact that so many of the better new QBs actually living up to their billing and draft position to be a bit surprising, because that's not what I was ever used to before. And it seems plenty haven't even realized that's the case.

[Brentastic]

I think Mallett will be the best quarterback from the class.

Really? I think Mallet is gonna be a hugh bust along with Locker. Newton could go either way but I wouldn't draft him. Gabbert is also fency for me but would not draft him based on the fact that I think there are a few pro-bowl-potential QBs that can be had in later rounds.

[Seahawks21]

Haha I intentionally typed my words around Romo. He's the one that really throws a monkey wrench in this . If you'll notice, I said any QB "drafted". I guess I'll give you Cassel, although I'm not totally sold. That's a point for you.

 

Bronco, shut up, just shut up. We get what you're trying to do, okay? OMG, are you trying to say there ARE risks involved with drafting a QB. Wow!!! Breaking news, ring the alarm!!

 

If you want to have a chance to be a contender, you take your QB in the first round, or maybe the 2nd in the right draft. It's that freakin' simple. Of all those "gems" you found in the later round, add up their playoff victories. If you're comfortable with that number, holler at me. Kick rocks.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Seahawks21

[flemingd]

Gruden exposes Cam Newton

 

 

 

Wow... now that has got to be very scary if you are a team thinking about drafting this guy.

Anyone thinking about drafting him is already very aware of this and has a plan to address it. It's why the word "development" is used so frequently with the kid.

[Bronco Billy]

Bronco, shut up, just shut up.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Me thinks you should go back and read the first post in this thread. "Give me an O-lineman early and a QB late every time". That's what got this whole thread started.

 

The OP was so esoteric that I never really gave it much consideration in the whole conversation.

 

 

The funny thing is, what you seem to be implying is stupidly obvious is actually rather contrary to what as been popular opinion for some time. That QB was the hardest position to scout and, thus, was one that perhaps you should wait on.

 

By whom exactly?

[tazinib1]

Bronco, shut up, just shut up.

 

 

Shut up!

 

 

 

The father is named Billy

Edited April 18, 2011 by tazinib1

[detlef]

The OP was so esoteric that I never really gave it much consideration in the whole conversation.

But that is the conversation. That it makes more sense to wait on a QB. That is the logic that is being debated.

 

Just so I can catch you up:

 

Polksalet basically said he thinks it's a better idea to grab an O-lineman early and a "smart kid" late.

 

Seahawks offered a cautionary tale to any who thought that was a smart way to go about finding your next QB by illustrating that nearly all the good ones drafted in the last 10 years have been high-profile, early round picks. Specifically mentioning that this doesn't mean that you're not going to find a bust there, but that you just had to bite the bullet and pull the trigger if you wanted a reasonable chance at landing a good QB

 

You seemed to take issue with that and, for some reason, posted a list of really bad early round QBs along with a list of decent to good later round guys.

 

I pointed out that was a pretty lame argument and you claimed we were arguing about something we weren't.

 

That's pretty much it.

 

As far as who subscribed to the opinion of waiting on a QB?

 

Go back 5-10 years and look at the QB rankings for the league. There were a lot of guys who were not high draft picks among the better QBs in the league. Meanwhile, there were a ton of busts at the top end. You can't help but look at that and wonder if it doesn't make sense to target other positions early in the draft and try and groom a QB. However, now, it seems like scouts are doing a better job of figuring out who is going to be good. The batting average at the top end has certainly improved.

Edited April 18, 2011 by detlef

[BeeR]

the statistical and physical comparability between Taylor Potts and Mallett.

Got it, thx.....

 

Matt Schaub is the only QB taken in the draft that wasn't in the first two rounds over the last 10 years that has even remotely come close to being successful. I think it has been since Brady that such a QB had a playoff win. Taking a QB in any round later is essentially a wasted pick. There will be some busts at QB, but risk is the only way you are rewarded in regards to that position.

Lately that's true but only lately and in the end I have to wonder how much less of a crapshoot later round QB picks are than higher ones.

[polksalet]

But that is the conversation. That it makes more sense to wait on a QB. That is the logic that is being debated.

 

Just so I can catch you up:

 

Polksalet basically said he thinks it's a better idea to grab an O-lineman early and a "smart kid" late.

 

Seahawks offered a cautionary tale to any who thought that was a smart way to go about finding your next QB by illustrating that nearly all the good ones drafted in the last 10 years have been high-profile, early round picks. Specifically mentioning that this doesn't mean that you're not going to find a bust there, but that you just had to bite the bullet and pull the trigger if you wanted a reasonable chance at landing a good QB

 

You seemed to take issue with that and, for some reason, posted a list of really bad early round QBs along with a list of decent to good later round guys.

 

I pointed out that was a pretty lame argument and you claimed we were arguing about something we weren't.

 

That's pretty much it.

 

As far as who subscribed to the opinion of waiting on a QB?

 

Go back 5-10 years and look at the QB rankings for the league. There were a lot of guys who were not high draft picks among the better QBs in the league. Meanwhile, there were a ton of busts at the top end. You can't help but look at that and wonder if it doesn't make sense to target other positions early in the draft and try and groom a QB. However, now, it seems like scouts are doing a better job of figuring out who is going to be good. The batting average at the top end has certainly improved.

 

Just for clarity let me say there is nothign wrong with taking a qb early if you are 100% on. For me that = Gabbert. As for the rest of the pack i'd rather take a good, smart baller later and an OT early. Even busts like Gallery, Leonard Davis, and Mandarich were serviceable. If you drop 50 mil on a Leaf or Jarmacus you have mangled your franchise for years. Thats sorta what I meant.

[Seahawks21]

Just for clarity let me say there is nothign wrong with taking a qb early if you are 100% on. For me that = Gabbert. As for the rest of the pack i'd rather take a good, smart baller later and an OT early. Even busts like Gallery, Leonard Davis, and Mandarich were serviceable. If you drop 50 mil on a Leaf or Jarmacus you have mangled your franchise for years. Thats sorta what I meant.

I'm not sure the 100% guy exists. The best college QB I've ever seen was Bradford (I was too young to evaluate Manning), and even he carried substantial risk. I haven't seen enough of Gabbert to comment. Is it possible that the "smart baller later" guy isn't available late anymore. Maybe that guy manifests himself in the form of Ponder or Dalton. I will say that it's been ten years since the "smart baller later" panned out. I still say that any QB taken after the 2nd round is completely a wasted pick, unless you're looking for a role player or you project a guy to be a backup for a long period. I'd rather take ANYBODY in rounds 3-5 than to pick a QB that essentially has no chance at ever being on the field. The draft is filled with tackles, LB's and RB's that pan out in the later rounds, but almost completely void of QB's. Take a flyer on a QB iin the 6th or 7th round where you're not going to get a player anyways, but I can't see the logic of taking one in rounds 3-5.

 

Taking a QB early can set your franchise back half a decade, or it can make your franchise competitive for a full decade. If you aren't up to take that risk at all, you essentially have no chance. It's a risky proposition, but it's basically the one and only way that success can even become possible.

[detlef]

Got it, thx.....

 

 

Lately that's true but only lately and in the end I have to wonder how much less of a crapshoot later round QB picks are than higher ones.

Certainly, but I can't help wonder whether or not teams have just been getting lucky or whether they've finally cracked the code. After all, they've been nailing the early round picks pretty well. Sure, there have been some busts, but they've been money for the last 3 years in the 1st round. You've got Bradford, Tebow, Stafford, Sanchez, Freeman, Ryan, and Flacco. Stafford can't stay healthy but has been good when he's played. Obviously the jury is out on Tebow, but he's also just got 3 games under his belt. Mind you, they only went 2 for 8 (Cutler and Rodgers, with Campbell at least not being a total train-wreck, while the others are flat-out busts) on 1st rounders over the three years previous.

 

So, it remains to be seen. Is this simply a lucky run for scouting QBs or is it a trend. None the less, what is pretty hard to dispute is the fact that, as Seahawks points out, nearly every QB that you would consider "good" in the NFL right now came from the early rounds (and, again, in fairness, it's not like Schaub was super late, going in the 3rd).

 

Just for clarity let me say there is nothign wrong with taking a qb early if you are 100% on. For me that = Gabbert. As for the rest of the pack i'd rather take a good, smart baller later and an OT early. Even busts like Gallery, Leonard Davis, and Mandarich were serviceable. If you drop 50 mil on a Leaf or Jarmacus you have mangled your franchise for years. Thats sorta what I meant.

Well, I'm certainly not advocating taking any old QB early just because it seems, more and more, that's where the good ones are found. They're either there or they're not. And I think that there's several guys who are going to go early that shouldn't just because teams are panicking. And honestly, I don't know enough about any of them to say if any are locks. I'll also add that there are some real head-scratchers being 1st round grades.

 

Seriously though, I've typically tended to agree with the sentiment you mentioned in your first post and have simply been made aware that it may not be so true anymore given the last few drafts and what Seahawks illustrated in his first post here. My knee-jerk reaction knowing my niners had a high pick was, "Please don't take a QB". That's the mind-set I've typically come from. Draft physical freaks early, take QBs later. It's just that I'm questioning that now.

 

I'm not sure the 100% guy exists. The best college QB I've ever seen was Bradford (I was too young to evaluate Manning), and even he carried substantial risk. I haven't seen enough of Gabbert to comment. Is it possible that the "smart baller later" guy isn't available late anymore. Maybe that guy manifests himself in the form of Ponder or Dalton. I will say that it's been ten years since the "smart baller later" panned out. I still say that any QB taken after the 2nd round is completely a wasted pick, unless you're looking for a role player or you project a guy to be a backup for a long period. I'd rather take ANYBODY in rounds 3-5 than to pick a QB that essentially has no chance at ever being on the field. The draft is filled with tackles, LB's and RB's that pan out in the later rounds, but almost completely void of QB's. Take a flyer on a QB iin the 6th or 7th round where you're not going to get a player anyways, but I can't see the logic of taking one in rounds 3-5.

 

Taking a QB early can set your franchise back half a decade, or it can make your franchise competitive for a full decade. If you aren't up to take that risk at all, you essentially have no chance. It's a risky proposition, but it's basically the one and only way that success can even become possible.

First off, I don't think Ponder or Dalton will qualify as "smart guy late" simply because I don't think they're going to go all that late. There's rumors of Washington trying to move back into the late 1st and grabbing Ponder then. And Dalton's name comes up way too often as a sleeper to be a sleeper. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see both of them off the board by the end of the 2nd.

 

Also, I wouldn't go so far as saying that grabbing a QB late is a complete waste of a pick, nor do I think that anyone drafts a QB late, simply hoping he turns into a solid back-up. I can't imagine anyone drafting a QB to be a back-up because back-ups are a dime a dozen. For starters, they last forever because they never get hit and you can always find one floating around in the FA market.

 

I agree that, if this trend continues where the guys who end up being really good are basically all being snapped up in the first round, unlike how it used to be, then it seems foolhardy to continue to ignore the position in the early rounds assuming you can keep grabbing guys late and hoping for the next Brady. I'll certainly give you that.

[polksalet]

Certainly, but I can't help wonder whether or not teams have just been getting lucky or whether they've finally cracked the code. After all, they've been nailing the early round picks pretty well. Sure, there have been some busts, but they've been money for the last 3 years in the 1st round. You've got Bradford, Tebow, Stafford, Sanchez, Freeman, Ryan, and Flacco. Stafford can't stay healthy but has been good when he's played. Obviously the jury is out on Tebow, but he's also just got 3 games under his belt. Mind you, they only went 2 for 8 (Cutler and Rodgers, with Campbell at least not being a total train-wreck, while the others are flat-out busts) on 1st rounders over the three years previous.

 

So, it remains to be seen. Is this simply a lucky run for scouting QBs or is it a trend. None the less, what is pretty hard to dispute is the fact that, as Seahawks points out, nearly every QB that you would consider "good" in the NFL right now came from the early rounds (and, again, in fairness, it's not like Schaub was super late, going in the 3rd).

 

 

Well, I'm certainly not advocating taking any old QB early just because it seems, more and more, that's where the good ones are found. They're either there or they're not. And I think that there's several guys who are going to go early that shouldn't just because teams are panicking. And honestly, I don't know enough about any of them to say if any are locks. I'll also add that there are some real head-scratchers being 1st round grades.

 

Seriously though, I've typically tended to agree with the sentiment you mentioned in your first post and have simply been made aware that it may not be so true anymore given the last few drafts and what Seahawks illustrated in his first post here. My knee-jerk reaction knowing my niners had a high pick was, "Please don't take a QB". That's the mind-set I've typically come from. Draft physical freaks early, take QBs later. It's just that I'm questioning that now.

 

 

First off, I don't think Ponder or Dalton will qualify as "smart guy late" simply because I don't think they're going to go all that late. There's rumors of Washington trying to move back into the late 1st and grabbing Ponder then. And Dalton's name comes up way too often as a sleeper to be a sleeper. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see both of them off the board by the end of the 2nd.

 

Also, I wouldn't go so far as saying that grabbing a QB late is a complete waste of a pick, nor do I think that anyone drafts a QB late, simply hoping he turns into a solid back-up. I can't imagine anyone drafting a QB to be a back-up because back-ups are a dime a dozen. For starters, they last forever because they never get hit and you can always find one floating around in the FA market.

 

I agree that, if this trend continues where the guys who end up being really good are basically all being snapped up in the first round, unlike how it used to be, then it seems foolhardy to continue to ignore the position in the early rounds assuming you can keep grabbing guys late and hoping for the next Brady. I'll certainly give you that.

 

another option is that since we know that qb's are becoming more prolific across the league that rookie qb's are also doing better. perhaps it is more of a case of highly touted prospects doing better in a better system (system=bad leage and bad rules to increase offense output.).

[detlef]

another option is that since we know that qb's are becoming more prolific across the league that rookie qb's are also doing better. perhaps it is more of a case of highly touted prospects doing better in a better system (system=bad leage and bad rules to increase offense output.).

But there's still good ones and bad ones. And they still did a better job of scouting the QB position over the last 3 years than the previous 3 (and all of those guys are young enough to still take advantage of whatever league-wide advantages QBs have now. In fact, even a better position since they'd be closer to the prime of a QB's career).

 

If I had to guess, I would say there's really only two sides to the argument:

 

One being, that they're doing a better job of scouting the QB position than they have in the past as evidenced by the success rate over the last three years.

 

The other being that three years is only three years and there's no reason to expect that the next three won't be like the drafts that produced Russell, Quinn, A Smith, and the other hacks that polluted the 1st round of those drafts.

 

I should also add, that unless the three years that yielded only Rodgers and Cutler amongst a group of flunkies produced a bevy of good QBs in the later rounds, that does little to challenge the argument that Seahawks made. It could simply mean that there just weren't many good QBs at all and we just didn't know that at the time. Besides, if your team desperately needs a QB, your fan base is not going to accept you skipping the position, especially if there's a guy who many think will be good, like Brady Quinn. Many were crucifying Miami for passing on him and actually thought that Cleveland scored a coup grabbing him where they did.

 

And also, one can't inflate the success of some dude like Tyler Thigpen just because he came out of nowhere and managed to start a few games. At the end of the day, he still didn't do jack, so it's not like he's a success story or anything.

Edited April 19, 2011 by detlef

[Seahawks21]

First off, I don't think Ponder or Dalton will qualify as "smart guy late" simply because I don't think they're going to go all that late. There's rumors of Washington trying to move back into the late 1st and grabbing Ponder then. And Dalton's name comes up way too often as a sleeper to be a sleeper. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see both of them off the board by the end of the 2nd.

 

What I was trying to illustrate here is that in the past, guys like Ponder or Dalton, possibly due to their lack of arm strength, might have been considered later round picks. With the emphasis now put on the ability to read coverages and accuracy rather than arm strength and mobility, a guy like them who may have been considered a late round pick years ago is now considered a legit early prospect. You're not going to see as many "smart ballers later", as the guys that are smarter than most and can throw the football accurately aren't going to be around later in drafts anymore. I'm wondering where that puts a guy like McElroy, or is he just too limited physically?

[Brentastic]

What I was trying to illustrate here is that in the past, guys like Ponder or Dalton, possibly due to their lack of arm strength, might have been considered later round picks. With the emphasis now put on the ability to read coverages and accuracy rather than arm strength and mobility, a guy like them who may have been considered a late round pick years ago is now considered a legit early prospect. You're not going to see as many "smart ballers later", as the guys that are smarter than most and can throw the football accurately aren't going to be around later in drafts anymore. I'm wondering where that puts a guy like McElroy, or is he just too limited physically?

I think McElroy is a sleeper. He has a lot of potential but he's never mentioned.

[polksalet]

What I was trying to illustrate here is that in the past, guys like Ponder or Dalton, possibly due to their lack of arm strength, might have been considered later round picks. With the emphasis now put on the ability to read coverages and accuracy rather than arm strength and mobility, a guy like them who may have been considered a late round pick years ago is now considered a legit early prospect. You're not going to see as many "smart ballers later", as the guys that are smarter than most and can throw the football accurately aren't going to be around later in drafts anymore. I'm wondering where that puts a guy like McElroy, or is he just too limited physically?

 

How about Taylor Potts who has huge arm and might be smartest player in the draft (including Mcelroy).

[NAUgrad]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/brian-b...s-career-042011

 

Interesting read about 1st round QB's.