Drafting First Round QBs? (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

Mike Sherman -- Aaron Rodgers -- FiredMike Mularkey -- J.P. Losman -- "resigned"/firedPhillip Rivers* -- Marty Schottenheimer -- rumor has it was almost fired this yearEli Manning* -- Tom Coughlin -- this one looks okMike Nolan -- Alex Smith -- Who knows how long Nolan will lastJoe Gibbs -- Jason Campbell -- Gibbs' job security is fineBill Cowher -- Ben Roethlisberger -- Cowher's job security is excellentMarvin Lewis -- Carson Palmer -- Lewis' job security is fineJack Del Rio -- Byron Leftwich -- Rio should be OKBrian Billick -- Kyle Boller -- nearly fired this year/only held on due to his SB ringDick Jauron -- Rex Grossman -- canned that yearDom Capers -- David Carr -- firedMarty Mornhinweg -- Joey Harrington -- fired that yearSteve Spurrier -- Patrick Ramsey -- fired the next yearDan Reeves -- Mike Vick -- Gone in a few years*Rivers/Manning tradeGrabbing a QB that high can be a sure fire road to getting canned. I predicted that Sherman wouldn't draft Rodgers even when he was sliding, because I thought it would lead to him losing his job. He drafted Rogers, and he lost his job. Mularkey never got to realize the potential benefits of Losman.Thoughts on if coaches with little job security (who often are the ones picking high) will start to avoid QBs?

 

[Getinthemix]

Why do people try to insist that coaches make teams choices for the draft. Why have a front office. The General Manager's job is to manage scouting and the draft. Not the coaches.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Why do people try to insist that coaches make teams choices for the draft. Why have a front office. The General Manager's job is to manage scouting and the draft. Not the coaches.

Some of those coaches (like Sherman) were directly responsible for the player selected.

 

[Jimmy James]

Spurrier resigned, didn't he?I agree with the GM comment, but I will note that several teams do have HC/GM combinations. It does make me wonder if those men are less likely to take the big QB risk than teams with GMs who aren't the HC.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Of the 15 first round QBs of the last 5 years...7 of the HCs are no longer around, with most being fired shortly after4 of the HCs have seen no benefit yet (Boller, Alex Smith, Campbell, Rivers)2 of the HCs have to be thrilled (Palmer, Roethlisberger)2 of the HCs are probably happy (Leftwich, Manning)That's not exactly the best success rate.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Why do people try to insist that coaches make teams choices for the draft.  Why have a front office.  The General Manager's job is to manage scouting and the draft.  Not the coaches.

Some of those coaches (like Sherman) were directly responsible for the player selected.

Sorry genius, but Sherman didn't draft Rodgers. Ted Thompson did. Nice try though.

 

[diesel7982]

Of the 15 first round QBs of the last 5 years...

7 of the HCs are no longer around, with most being fired shortly after

4 of the HCs have seen no benefit yet (Boller, Alex Smith, Campbell, Rivers)

2 of the HCs have to be thrilled (Palmer, Roethlisberger)

2 of the HCs are probably happy (Leftwich, Manning)

That's not exactly the best success rate.

Do most HC's who draft a 1st round QB get fired? Sure. But is the drafting of a first round QB why?Could it be that teams with bad QBs, that have a need for a QB in the draft, are likely to be losers anyways?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Of the 15 first round QBs of the last 5 years...

7 of the HCs are no longer around, with most being fired shortly after

4 of the HCs have seen no benefit yet (Boller, Alex Smith, Campbell, Rivers)

2 of the HCs have to be thrilled (Palmer, Roethlisberger)

2 of the HCs are probably happy (Leftwich, Manning)

That's not exactly the best success rate.

Do most HC's who draft a 1st round QB get fired? Sure. But is the drafting of a first round QB why?Could it be that teams with bad QBs, that have a need for a QB in the draft, are likely to be losers anyways?

The point is that it takes young QBs years to develop. Even if they're going to be good, lots of times that original HC is already gone.Even if JP Losman turns out to be Elway, it didn't help Mularkey any. The same for Vick/Reeves, etc.

 

[diesel7982]

Of the 15 first round QBs of the last 5 years...

7 of the HCs are no longer around, with most being fired shortly after

4 of the HCs have seen no benefit yet (Boller, Alex Smith, Campbell, Rivers)

2 of the HCs have to be thrilled (Palmer, Roethlisberger)

2 of the HCs are probably happy (Leftwich, Manning)

That's not exactly the best success rate.

Do most HC's who draft a 1st round QB get fired? Sure. But is the drafting of a first round QB why?Could it be that teams with bad QBs, that have a need for a QB in the draft, are likely to be losers anyways?

The point is that it takes young QBs years to develop. Even if they're going to be good, lots of times that original HC is already gone.Even if JP Losman turns out to be Elway, it didn't help Mularkey any. The same for Vick/Reeves, etc.

As Big Ben, Eli, Palmer, etc are showing, thats not necessarily true. In general, it takes players at every position 2-3 years to make an impact. You could look at the list of 1st rounders from any year, and find 50% or more that did not have an impact and that will likely not be good until they are playing for a new HC.Agree?

 

[Jimmy James]

The point is that it takes young QBs years to develop. Even if they're going to be good, lots of times that original HC is already gone.

Even if JP Losman turns out to be Elway, it didn't help Mularkey any. The same for Vick/Reeves, etc.

That's also the way the movie/tv business works. That doesn't mean that the studio/network executives shy away from greenlighting shows. It is a risk to draft the 1st round QB, but it's a risk that makes a lot of sense in a lot of situations. I have to agree with the person who asked the causation question. I see nothing to suggest that most of those coaches would have been retained but for that draft pick.

 

[packersfan]

Grabbing a QB that high can be a sure fire road to getting canned. I predicted that Sherman wouldn't draft Rodgers even when he was sliding, because I thought it would lead to him losing his job. He drafted Rogers, and he lost his job.

1. Sherman didn't draft Rodgers. Thompson did.2. The Rodgers draft pick had nothing to do with Sherman getting fired. It can't even be put on a list of the 1,000 reasons why Mike Sherman got fired.

Weak coorelation as far as the Packers are concerned. Sorry Chase.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Of the 15 first round QBs of the last 5 years...

7 of the HCs are no longer around, with most being fired shortly after

4 of the HCs have seen no benefit yet (Boller, Alex Smith, Campbell, Rivers)

2 of the HCs have to be thrilled (Palmer, Roethlisberger)

2 of the HCs are probably happy (Leftwich, Manning)

That's not exactly the best success rate.

Do most HC's who draft a 1st round QB get fired? Sure. But is the drafting of a first round QB why?Could it be that teams with bad QBs, that have a need for a QB in the draft, are likely to be losers anyways?

The point is that it takes young QBs years to develop. Even if they're going to be good, lots of times that original HC is already gone.Even if JP Losman turns out to be Elway, it didn't help Mularkey any. The same for Vick/Reeves, etc.

As Big Ben, Eli, Palmer, etc are showing, thats not necessarily true. In general, it takes players at every position 2-3 years to make an impact. You could look at the list of 1st rounders from any year, and find 50% or more that did not have an impact and that will likely not be good until they are playing for a new HC.Agree?

Do you disagree that QBs take longer than any other position to develop?Palmer didn't become a stud until year 3, and Manning wasn't great this year.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Grabbing a QB that high can be a sure fire road to getting canned. I predicted that Sherman wouldn't draft Rodgers even when he was sliding, because I thought it would lead to him losing his job. He drafted Rogers, and he lost his job.

1. Sherman didn't draft Rodgers. Thompson did.2. The Rodgers draft pick had nothing to do with Sherman getting fired. It can't even be put on a list of the 1,000 reasons why Mike Sherman got fired.

Weak coorelation as far as the Packers are concerned. Sorry Chase.

If the Packers had drafted an impact player, it would have helped. I agree it wasn't the reason he was fired.I'm simply saying that if I was a HC, I'd have serious reservations about drafting a QB in the first round. It's only worked out for 2-4 of the 15 HCs that have been in that situation the past 5 years.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

The recent success of Palmer and Roethlisberger will not put a stop to drafting QBs early.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The recent success of Palmer and Roethlisberger will not put a stop to drafting QBs early.

I agree. I'm just saying if I was a HC, I'd have some serious reservations about it. The odds of a QB panning out are always hit or miss, and the odds of him being a hit while you're there is even smaller.Mularkey and Sherman couldn't care less how their young QBs turn out anymore.

 

[packersfan]

Grabbing a QB that high can be a sure fire road to getting canned. I predicted that Sherman wouldn't draft Rodgers even when he was sliding, because I thought it would lead to him losing his job. He drafted Rogers, and he lost his job.

1. Sherman didn't draft Rodgers. Thompson did.2. The Rodgers draft pick had nothing to do with Sherman getting fired. It can't even be put on a list of the 1,000 reasons why Mike Sherman got fired.

Weak coorelation as far as the Packers are concerned. Sorry Chase.

If the Packers had drafted an impact player, it would have helped.

The Packers may have drafted an impact player. We don't know yet whether Rodgers will pan out or not. However, given all of the issues this team encountered, one player drafted late in the first round was not going to make that much of an impact on what proved to be a lost.

I agree it wasn't the reason he was fired.

Then you'll remove him from the list?

I'm simply saying that if I was a HC, I'd have serious reservations about drafting a QB in the first round. It's only worked out for 2-4 of the 15 HCs that have been in that situation the past 5 years.

Perhaps that's just a cyclical thing. In 92, the Packers surrendered a first-round pick for a third-string QB. That turned out to be an OK move for the team in terms of using a first-round pick on a QB.

 

[Tyranny]

Unless the QB is an Elway or Marino, I'd say you're better off waiting. My thoughts last year were that no QB was worth a first round pick and that San Fran. would be better off going with a RB first then picking up a QB in the second or third. I know that they had Barlow under contract but those three RB's were by far better than any QB in the draft. But those decisions are why some teams are constantly losing.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Grabbing a QB that high can be a sure fire road to getting canned. I predicted that Sherman wouldn't draft Rodgers even when he was sliding, because I thought it would lead to him losing his job. He drafted Rogers, and he lost his job.

1. Sherman didn't draft Rodgers. Thompson did.2. The Rodgers draft pick had nothing to do with Sherman getting fired. It can't even be put on a list of the 1,000 reasons why Mike Sherman got fired.

Weak coorelation as far as the Packers are concerned. Sorry Chase.

If the Packers had drafted an impact player, it would have helped.

The Packers may have drafted an impact player. We don't know yet whether Rodgers will pan out or not. However, given all of the issues this team encountered, one player drafted late in the first round was not going to make that much of an impact on what proved to be a lost.

I agree it wasn't the reason he was fired.

Then you'll remove him from the list?

I'm simply saying that if I was a HC, I'd have serious reservations about drafting a QB in the first round. It's only worked out for 2-4 of the 15 HCs that have been in that situation the past 5 years.

Perhaps that's just a cyclical thing. In 92, the Packers surrendered a first-round pick for a third-string QB. That turned out to be an OK move for the team in terms of using a first-round pick on a QB.

I'm not removing him from the list because my premise isn't that he was fired because he had Rodgers. I'm not making any conclusions here, just looking at the data. It's crystal clear that 11 of the past 15 first round QBs have yielded zero or negative results for the HCs that were around when they drafted them. If that's not interesting at all to you, that's cool. It is to me.

 

[packersfan]

Grabbing a QB that high can be a sure fire road to getting canned. I predicted that Sherman wouldn't draft Rodgers even when he was sliding, because I thought it would lead to him losing his job. He drafted Rogers, and he lost his job.

1. Sherman didn't draft Rodgers. Thompson did.2. The Rodgers draft pick had nothing to do with Sherman getting fired. It can't even be put on a list of the 1,000 reasons why Mike Sherman got fired.

Weak coorelation as far as the Packers are concerned. Sorry Chase.

If the Packers had drafted an impact player, it would have helped.

The Packers may have drafted an impact player. We don't know yet whether Rodgers will pan out or not. However, given all of the issues this team encountered, one player drafted late in the first round was not going to make that much of an impact on what proved to be a lost.

I agree it wasn't the reason he was fired.

Then you'll remove him from the list?

I'm simply saying that if I was a HC, I'd have serious reservations about drafting a QB in the first round. It's only worked out for 2-4 of the 15 HCs that have been in that situation the past 5 years.

Perhaps that's just a cyclical thing. In 92, the Packers surrendered a first-round pick for a third-string QB. That turned out to be an OK move for the team in terms of using a first-round pick on a QB.

I'm not removing him from the list because my premise isn't that he was fired because he had Rodgers. I'm not making any conclusions here, just looking at the data. It's crystal clear that 11 of the past 15 first round QBs have yielded zero or negative results for the HCs that were around when they drafted them. If that's not interesting at all to you, that's cool. It is to me.

In your initial post you said and I quote "Grabbing a QB that high can be a sure fire road to getting canned." Then you say that drafting Rodgers wasn't a reason why Sherman was fired. In other words, you acknowledge that the Sherman-Rodgers example doesn't fit your point. And yet you won't remove him even after that acknowlegement.Interesting.

 

[Getinthemix]

Grabbing a QB that high can be a sure fire road to getting canned. I predicted that Sherman wouldn't draft Rodgers even when he was sliding, because I thought it would lead to him losing his job. He drafted Rogers, and he lost his job.

1. Sherman didn't draft Rodgers. Thompson did.2. The Rodgers draft pick had nothing to do with Sherman getting fired. It can't even be put on a list of the 1,000 reasons why Mike Sherman got fired.

Weak coorelation as far as the Packers are concerned. Sorry Chase.

If the Packers had drafted an impact player, it would have helped. I agree it wasn't the reason he was fired.I'm simply saying that if I was a HC, I'd have serious reservations about drafting a QB in the first round. It's only worked out for 2-4 of the 15 HCs that have been in that situation the past 5 years.

Then you most likely would not be the one making the decision on whom to draft.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

The recent success of Palmer and Roethlisberger will not put a stop to drafting QBs early.

I agree. I'm just saying if I was a HC, I'd have some serious reservations about it. The odds of a QB panning out are always hit or miss, and the odds of him being a hit while you're there is even smaller.Mularkey and Sherman couldn't care less how their young QBs turn out anymore.

Also I think Ramsey was a 2nd rounder.QBs are the hardest to project to the NFL, yet for whatever reason, teams have no problem tying up $50M in the salary cap on these guys before they even set foot on an NFL team.

I did a real informal study on teams draft choices leading up to a SB run and OL/D is the overwhelming favorite for these teams.

The last couple years when people were gushing over all the offensive picks the Lions were making, I went against the grain saying (from a historical perspective), the Bears were making much wiser draft picks and were a better play for long term success in the NFC North. They have invested heavily in their defense through the draft since 2000(5 first day picks at starter) and it's starting to pay dividends.

Seattle has 5 first day picks on their starting defense.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Grabbing a QB that high can be a sure fire road to getting canned. I predicted that Sherman wouldn't draft Rodgers even when he was sliding, because I thought it would lead to him losing his job. He drafted Rogers, and he lost his job.

1. Sherman didn't draft Rodgers. Thompson did.2. The Rodgers draft pick had nothing to do with Sherman getting fired. It can't even be put on a list of the 1,000 reasons why Mike Sherman got fired.

Weak coorelation as far as the Packers are concerned. Sorry Chase.

If the Packers had drafted an impact player, it would have helped. I agree it wasn't the reason he was fired.I'm simply saying that if I was a HC, I'd have serious reservations about drafting a QB in the first round. It's only worked out for 2-4 of the 15 HCs that have been in that situation the past 5 years.

Then you most likely would not be the one making the decision on whom to draft.

Depends on the team his input would carry more weight than with other teams. Maybe not the final say, but could have a heavy influence on the say.

 

[Don Quixote]

I don't really see the pattern. Of the 15 teams that have picked a QB in the first round in the past five years, only 4 coaches are left. But of the teams that haven't picked a QB in the first in the past five years, how many of those are left?I can only think of five coaches that have held the same coaching position for the past five years [maybe there are others I am missing]...Cowher (starting QB = 1st during his tenure)Reid (starting QB = 1st during his tenure)Fisher (starting QB =1st during his tenure)Billick (starting QB = 1st during his tenure)Shanahan (starting QB not a 1st during his tenure)So, of the coaches who have held the same position for 5+ years, only Shanahan does not have as his starting QB a QB who was drafted in the first round during his tenure. I think it's a really specious argument you are making.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I don't really see the pattern. Of the 15 teams that have picked a QB in the first round in the past five years, only 4 coaches are left. But of the teams that haven't picked a QB in the first in the past five years, how many of those are left?

I can only think of five coaches that have held the same coaching position for the past five years [maybe there are others I am missing]...

Cowher (starting QB = 1st during his tenure)

Reid (starting QB = 1st during his tenure)

Fisher (starting QB =1st during his tenure)

Billick (starting QB = 1st during his tenure)

Shanahan (starting QB not a 1st during his tenure)

So, of the coaches who have held the same position for 5+ years, only Shanahan does not have as his starting QB a QB who was drafted in the first round during his tenure.

I think it's a really specious argument you are making.

So is yours. Obviously not many coaches hold the position for 5+ years. But Spurrier, Reeves, etc. didn't make it near the 5 year mark.I haven't really made an argument either. Just pointed out that 11 of the past 15 first round QBs have paid no dividends for the HCs that drafted them. What's the confusing part here?

Mularkey and Sherman were gone the year they made their pick, as was Mornhinweg and Jauron.

How would you like to judge it?

 

[Jimmy James]

I haven't really made an argument either. Just pointed out that 11 of the past 15 first round QBs have paid no dividends for the HCs that drafted them. What's the confusing part here?

The confusing part appears to be all on your part, and it is about who actually drafts players.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I haven't really made an argument either. Just pointed out that 11 of the past 15 first round QBs have paid no dividends for the HCs that drafted them. What's the confusing part here?

The confusing part appears to be all on your part, and it is about who actually drafts players.

Sorry it's confusing for you JJ. I hope you can find a different thread that suits your needs better.

 

[Don Quixote]

I don't really see the pattern. Of the 15 teams that have picked a QB in the first round in the past five years, only 4 coaches are left. But of the teams that haven't picked a QB in the first in the past five years, how many of those are left?

I can only think of five coaches that have held the same coaching position for the past five years [maybe there are others I am missing]...

Cowher (starting QB = 1st during his tenure)

Reid (starting QB = 1st during his tenure)

Fisher (starting QB =1st during his tenure)

Billick (starting QB = 1st during his tenure)

Shanahan (starting QB not a 1st during his tenure)

So, of the coaches who have held the same position for 5+ years, only Shanahan does not have as his starting QB a QB who was drafted in the first round during his tenure.

I think it's a really specious argument you are making.

So is yours. Obviously not many coaches hold the position for 5+ years. But Spurrier, Reeves, etc. didn't make it near the 5 year mark.I haven't really made an argument either. Just pointed out that 11 of the past 15 first round QBs have paid no dividends for the HCs that drafted them. What's the confusing part here?

Mularkey and Sherman were gone the year they made their pick, as was Mornhinweg and Jauron.

How would you like to judge it?

They are both specious. That's my point. Coach turnover is common. Nobody lasts long in the business. Drafting a QB in the first round has no bearing on whether a head coach gets fired or not. Very few coaches keep a job for any length of time.I'd judge it by saying that the Packers taking Rodgers had no impact on Sherman's firing, etc... They all would have been fired no matter who they picked. [Would Marty Morniwheg have had a longer coaching career if the Lions took Terrance Newman instead of Joey Harrington? I think not.]

 

[Jimmy James]

I haven't really made an argument either. Just pointed out that 11 of the past 15 first round QBs have paid no dividends for the HCs that drafted them. What's the confusing part here?

The confusing part appears to be all on your part, and it is about who actually drafts players.

Sorry it's confusing for you JJ. I hope you can find a different thread that suits your needs better.

It's not about my needs, and it's not about being mean to you. It's about the fact that it has been pointed out several times that HCs do not in all cases make the call on who gets drafted. You aren't recognizing that with your analysis, which is why this thread is not progressing.ETA: If that wasn't specific enough, let me point out you wrote "HCs that drafted them". That's the key part here.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I don't really see the pattern. Of the 15 teams that have picked a QB in the first round in the past five years, only 4 coaches are left. But of the teams that haven't picked a QB in the first in the past five years, how many of those are left?

I can only think of five coaches that have held the same coaching position for the past five years [maybe there are others I am missing]...

Cowher (starting QB = 1st during his tenure)

Reid (starting QB = 1st during his tenure)

Fisher (starting QB =1st during his tenure)

Billick (starting QB = 1st during his tenure)

Shanahan (starting QB not a 1st during his tenure)

So, of the coaches who have held the same position for 5+ years, only Shanahan does not have as his starting QB a QB who was drafted in the first round during his tenure.

I think it's a really specious argument you are making.

So is yours. Obviously not many coaches hold the position for 5+ years. But Spurrier, Reeves, etc. didn't make it near the 5 year mark.I haven't really made an argument either. Just pointed out that 11 of the past 15 first round QBs have paid no dividends for the HCs that drafted them. What's the confusing part here?

Mularkey and Sherman were gone the year they made their pick, as was Mornhinweg and Jauron.

How would you like to judge it?

They are both specious. That's my point. Coach turnover is common. Nobody lasts long in the business. Drafting a QB in the first round has no bearing on whether a head coach gets fired or not. Very few coaches keep a job for any length of time.I'd judge it by saying that the Packers taking Rodgers had no impact on Sherman's firing, etc... They all would have been fired no matter who they picked.

Well certainly winning coaches are rarely fired. But teams that spend a first round pick on a guy who is on the bench are generally a step behind. It's even worse when they're a bad team, as they don't have much talent to compensate.Either way, just something I was thinking about today as the Bills hire a new HC and decide what to do with Holcomb.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I haven't really made an argument either. Just pointed out that 11 of the past 15 first round QBs have paid no dividends for the HCs that drafted them. What's the confusing part here?

The confusing part appears to be all on your part, and it is about who actually drafts players.

Sorry it's confusing for you JJ. I hope you can find a different thread that suits your needs better.

It's not about my needs, and it's not about being mean to you. It's about the fact that it has been pointed out several times that HCs do not in all cases make the call on who gets drafted. You aren't recognizing that with your analysis, which is why this thread is not progressing.

It doesn't matter that HCs don't make the call on who gets drafted. I'm not saying HCs shouldn't draft QBs in the first round. What's hard to follow here? Whoever drafts the player is largely irrelevant; I'm looking at the correlation between first round QBs and what happens to the HC. Not who makes the final call.

 

[Jimmy James]

I haven't really made an argument either. Just pointed out that 11 of the past 15 first round QBs have paid no dividends for the HCs that drafted them. What's the confusing part here?

The confusing part appears to be all on your part, and it is about who actually drafts players.

Sorry it's confusing for you JJ. I hope you can find a different thread that suits your needs better.

It's not about my needs, and it's not about being mean to you. It's about the fact that it has been pointed out several times that HCs do not in all cases make the call on who gets drafted. You aren't recognizing that with your analysis, which is why this thread is not progressing.

It doesn't matter that HCs don't make the call on who gets drafted. I'm not saying HCs shouldn't draft QBs in the first round. What's hard to follow here? Whoever drafts the player is largely irrelevant; I'm looking at the correlation between first round QBs and what happens to the HC. Not who makes the final call.

I don't think that has been articulated particularly well up until now. I'll go back to my entertainment industry analogy in response to this point. I think you are right -- projects that come in during a particular person's tenure often don't benefit the people who were there when they were brought in. Actually, I have seen the same thing in real life as well. I think it's actually the nature of the corporate form that promotes this.

 

[Don Quixote]

It doesn't matter that HCs don't make the call on who gets drafted. I'm not saying HCs shouldn't draft QBs in the first round. What's hard to follow here? Whoever drafts the player is largely irrelevant; I'm looking at the correlation between first round QBs and what happens to the HC. Not who makes the final call.

I think the confusion stems from the title: "Drafting 1st Round QB's: Will it stop?" People may be reading your thread as arguing that because HC's find their jobs in jeopardy by drafting a QB in the first, HC's are going to stop drafting QB's (when, with the exception of the GM-HC's, they generally have limited power to stop them from being drafted).

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Mularkey and Sherman were gone the year they made their pick, as was Mornhinweg and Jauron. How would you like to judge it?

PLEASE stop implying that Sherman picked Rodgers. He had NOTHING to do with that pick -- Ted Thompson clearly made the call.

 

[-OZ-]

Chase - I asked a very similar question around draft time, so I tend to agree with your hypothesis.

"Never draft a QB high"

 

[Z-Dog]

Grabbing a QB that high can be a sure fire road to getting canned. I predicted that Sherman wouldn't draft Rodgers even when he was sliding, because I thought it would lead to him losing his job. He drafted Rogers, and he lost his job.

1. Sherman didn't draft Rodgers. Thompson did.2. The Rodgers draft pick had nothing to do with Sherman getting fired. It can't even be put on a list of the 1,000 reasons why Mike Sherman got fired.

Weak coorelation as far as the Packers are concerned. Sorry Chase.

If the Packers had drafted an impact player, it would have helped. I agree it wasn't the reason he was fired.I'm simply saying that if I was a HC, I'd have serious reservations about drafting a QB in the first round. It's only worked out for 2-4 of the 15 HCs that have been in that situation the past 5 years.

Chase, in a league in which 25-33% turnover among HCs yearly is considered normal, your correlations aren't particularly illuminating. The othere side of the problem is this: the vast majority of teams have 1st-rounders starting at QB, b/c it's very hard to find someone outside of the first round who can do the job. Only the Patriots, Chiefs, Packers, Panthers, and Seahawks have a stable non-first-rounder installed as the starter. Everybody else either has a 1st-rounder or is still looking around for a QB.

 

[Bri]

Reeves is long gone from Atlanta, got an oops there

 

[Bri]

Mike Sherman -- Aaron Rodgers -- Fired

Mike Mularkey -- J.P. Losman -- "resigned"/fired

Phillip Rivers* -- Marty Schottenheimer -- rumor has it was almost fired this year

Eli Manning* -- Tom Coughlin -- this one looks ok

Mike Nolan -- Alex Smith -- Who knows how long Nolan will last

Joe Gibbs -- Jason Campbell -- Gibbs' job security is fine

Bill Cowher -- Ben Roethlisberger -- Cowher's job security is excellent

Marvin Lewis -- Carson Palmer -- Lewis' job security is fine

Jack Del Rio -- Byron Leftwich -- Rio should be OK

Brian Billick -- Kyle Boller -- nearly fired this year/only held on due to his SB ring

**** Jauron -- Rex Grossman -- canned that year

Dom Capers -- David Carr -- fired

Marty Mornhinweg -- Joey Harrington -- fired that year

Steve Spurrier -- Patrick Ramsey -- fired the next year

Dan Reeves -- Mike Vick -- Gone in a few years

*Rivers/Manning trade

Grabbing a QB that high can be a sure fire road to getting canned. I predicted that Sherman wouldn't draft Rodgers even when he was sliding, because I thought it would lead to him losing his job. He drafted Rogers, and he lost his job. Mularkey never got to realize the potential benefits of Losman.

Thoughts on if coaches with little job security (who often are the ones picking high) will start to avoid QBs?

You left out the gems on purpose I guess to prove your point. I think the Eagles have a great D but I'm not sure they won before Donovan. They've had several winning seasons since he came to town. I think the risk/reward has always been there and we'll always be able to have these types of discussions.Another odd risk/reward scenario was Capers and if he could make an expansion team win the Supe, then he tried again.

Alot of guys in the NFL think they're geniuses and that inadvertently makes them a glutton for punishment.

 

[Family Matters]

I didn't see this posted so my apologies if this has already been discussed.One angle to consider with where QB's are drafted has to do with contracts. Teams do not like to pay big contracts to short term players. QB's tend to last longer than most, tend to be the most cerebal and therefore make it more comfortable for the team to make a long term big money contract offer.Now that's not always the case and I'm sure there are numerous examples to prove it can be a RB or WR. But usually those big contracts are reserved for the QB's.Teams have been known to not like to pay anyone big contracts but the reality is QB's are going to get the lion's share. Therefore, they will command the early draft picks most often. The CBA sets the range of pay from the draft position. You won't see too many lineman drafted top 3. It would take a rare guy like Pace or Ogden to get drafted that early. Sometimes a RB or WR will go early but if a team is looking to get a player that can be had later in the draft then we might trade down to avoid the big contract. Then someone wanting a QB can trade up.Now there is another perspective you have to account for and that is that fans love QB's. They lead the team's they QB and fans are locked into their success accordingly. QB stats are overrated but fans buy tickets to see the QB pass the ball. That's what sells and that's what drives the payscale.Yes QB stats are overrated but not wins and losses. Fans love QB's that win. And if a QB leads a team like Indy where they pass a lot or a team like Pitts where they run a lot, fans still love their QB because they WIN!I know you guys know this but from a payscale perspective that's what's usually going to happen and teams are still going to draft QB's early. So to answer the question Chase proposed, no, teams won't stop drafting QB's in the 1st round.

 

[Sam Quentin]

Why do people try to insist that coaches make teams choices for the draft.  Why have a front office.  The General Manager's job is to manage scouting and the draft.  Not the coaches.

Some of those coaches (like Sherman) were directly responsible for the player selected.

Sorry genius, but Sherman didn't draft Rodgers. Ted Thompson did. Nice try though.

For the puposes of this argument does it really matter, einstein?