What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Guess you really don't need that 1st-rd QB huh? (1 Viewer)

Capella

CAPELLODINHO
Delhomme HasselbeckPlummerAll except Big Ben were undrafted, not highly-thought of free agents or low-round choices. Recent SB winners include Brady (6th round), Johnson (10th-rd or something), Warner (undrafted) and Dilfer (1st-round, but ended up as a free-agent caretaker for the team that won it).When are teams going to stop blowing early picks on these guys? Looking towards April, you see two of the top-three at the draft are going to ignore their sizeable holes on their roster and go QB again. :crazy:

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Chase Stuart

Footballguy
Delhomme

Hasselbeck

Plummer

All except Big Ben were undrafted, not highly-thought of free agents or low-round choices.

Recent SB winners include Brady (6th round), Johnson (10th-rd or something), Warner (undrafted) and Dilfer (1st-round, but ended up as a free-agent caretaker for the team that won it).

When are teams going to stop blowing early picks on these guys? Looking towards April, you see two of the top-three at the draft are going to ignore their sizeable holes on their roster and go QB again.

:crazy:
Who should teams take in the first round?
 

Capella

CAPELLODINHO
Delhomme

Hasselbeck

Plummer

All except Big Ben were undrafted, not highly-thought of free agents or low-round choices.

Recent SB winners include Brady (6th round), Johnson (10th-rd or something), Warner (undrafted) and Dilfer (1st-round, but ended up as a free-agent caretaker for the team that won it).

When are teams going to stop blowing early picks on these guys? Looking towards April, you see two of the top-three at the draft are going to ignore their sizeable holes on their roster and go QB again.

:crazy:
Who should teams take in the first round?
I dunno. Make a trade. If you're the Saints, improve your putrid defense. Do something different.
 

DoctorDetroit

Chocolate Thunder
Delhomme

Hasselbeck

Plummer

All except Big Ben were undrafted, not highly-thought of free agents or low-round choices.

Recent SB winners include Brady (6th round), Johnson (10th-rd or something), Warner (undrafted) and Dilfer (1st-round, but ended up as a free-agent caretaker for the team that won it).

When are teams going to stop blowing early picks on these guys? Looking towards April, you see two of the top-three at the draft are going to ignore their sizeable holes on their roster and go QB again.

:crazy:
Plus given the complexity of the position and the timing issues (college is a game of feet and the pros a game of inches) lends me to believe teams are taking a much bigger risk at QB than at other positions. In a recent sporting news article they talked about the position in depth and came to the conclusion that the younger QBs in the NFL (save Palmer) are just not good enough and it scares scouts. Cutler and Leinhart are sure to be good NFL QBs but it's a dice roll to me after that (yes including V. Young). Why not wait until the mid rounds and snag a guy with potential and use your higher picks to get defense and O-line help? The same can be said for WRs but that doesn't stop the Lions from drafting the position every year and look where that has gotten them. Why take a chance using your #1 pick on Akili Smith when you can get an Aaron Brooks at #131 in the same draft (say what you want about Brooks but the guy has been an NFL starter for a number of years)? It happens every year and your right, teams aren't getting the point.

 

Keys Myaths

Pokerguy
Delhomme

Hasselbeck

Plummer

All except Big Ben were undrafted, not highly-thought of free agents or low-round choices.

Recent SB winners include Brady (6th round), Johnson (10th-rd or something), Warner (undrafted) and Dilfer (1st-round, but ended up as a free-agent caretaker for the team that won it).

When are teams going to stop blowing early picks on these guys? Looking towards April, you see two of the top-three at the draft are going to ignore their sizeable holes on their roster and go QB again.

:crazy:
Come on, Cappy, you're better than this.Yes, from 2000-2005, 1 1st round QB won a SB.

From 1993-1999, 6 super bowls were won by a QB drafted in the first round, and the remaining one was won by a second rounder.

I can make anything true if I pick the right years to analyze.

 

Fla\/\/ed

Footballguy
Delhomme

Hasselbeck

Plummer

All except Big Ben were undrafted, not highly-thought of free agents or low-round choices.

Recent SB winners include Brady (6th round), Johnson (10th-rd or something), Warner (undrafted) and Dilfer (1st-round, but ended up as a free-agent caretaker for the team that won it).

When are teams going to stop blowing early picks on these guys? Looking towards April, you see two of the top-three at the draft are going to ignore their sizeable holes on their roster and go QB again.

:crazy:
Who should teams take in the first round?
Akili Smith, Heath Shuler, Ryan Leaf, Tim Couch, Cade McNown, Joey Harrington, and Jim Drunkenmiller. :thumbup:
 

BGP

Indians Fever
I wonder if anyone has done a study of not just the QB position, but of ALL positions with regards to super bowl champs. What positions on the team are most-likely to be filled by first-round picks on title teams? What positions are the least-likely to be filled?

 

jetpack

Footballguy
What I see is that the three veteran QBs in the playoffs were late blossomers who needed time, opportunity, and the right situation to develop. Their current teams, and not the teams who drafted them, reaped the benefits. But it is quite strange that you can go the whole way back to at least 1994 and find only one 1st or 2nd round QB who played in a Super Bowl - McNabb.

 

Family Matters

Footballguy
Delhomme

Hasselbeck

Plummer

All except Big Ben were undrafted, not highly-thought of free agents or low-round choices.

Recent SB winners include Brady (6th round), Johnson (10th-rd or something), Warner (undrafted) and Dilfer (1st-round, but ended up as a free-agent caretaker for the team that won it).

When are teams going to stop blowing early picks on these guys? Looking towards April, you see two of the top-three at the draft are going to ignore their sizeable holes on their roster and go QB again.

:crazy:
Good post and doesn't this theory transcend to fantasy as well? It does as far as I'm concerned.
 

Chase Stuart

Footballguy
I wonder if anyone has done a study of not just the QB position, but of ALL positions with regards to super bowl champs. What positions on the team are most-likely to be filled by first-round picks on title teams? What positions are the least-likely to be filled?
I'm not sure of anyone who's done a study, but my guess would be over the course of the NFL draft, Qbs are the position most likely to be filled by first-round picks on the most successful teams.That's why I was curious to know what position Capella would want a team to draft instead, so we could test it out.

 

Keys Myaths

Pokerguy
What I see is that the three veteran QBs in the playoffs were late blossomers who needed time, opportunity, and the right situation to develop. Their current teams, and not the teams who drafted them, reaped the benefits. But it is quite strange that you can go the whole way back to at least 1994 and find only one 1st or 2nd round QB who played in a Super Bowl - McNabb.
What??1994?

Aikman, Young, and Elway down?

 

TommyGilmore

Footballguy
Delhomme

Hasselbeck

Plummer

All except Big Ben were undrafted, not highly-thought of free agents or low-round choices.

Recent SB winners include Brady (6th round), Johnson (10th-rd or something), Warner (undrafted) and Dilfer (1st-round, but ended up as a free-agent caretaker for the team that won it).

When are teams going to stop blowing early picks on these guys? Looking towards April, you see two of the top-three at the draft are going to ignore their sizeable holes on their roster and go QB again.

:crazy:
Come on, Cappy, you're better than this.Yes, from 2000-2005, 1 1st round QB won a SB.

From 1993-1999, 6 super bowls were won by a QB drafted in the first round, and the remaining one was won by a second rounder.
Yet 75% of those QBs weren't playing for the teams that drafted them.So yes, you do need a good QB to win the Super Bowl. You just don't need to spend a first round pick on one. :thumbup:

 

Chase Stuart

Footballguy
RBs on the top 4 teams:Willie Parker - who?Nick Goings - who?Mike Anderson - who?Shaun Alexander - 1st round pickNot much different than the QBs, eh? Even if you use Stephen Davis for the Panthers, he'd fall into the Jake Plummer category -- and I think SD was a 4th round pick anyway.

 

Chase Stuart

Footballguy
What I see is that the three veteran QBs in the playoffs were late blossomers who needed time, opportunity, and the right situation to develop. Their current teams, and not the teams who drafted them, reaped the benefits. But it is quite strange that you can go the whole way back to at least 1994 and find only one 1st or 2nd round QB who played in a Super Bowl - McNabb.
What??1994?

Aikman, Young, and Elway down?
How about Favre and Bledsoe?
 

Capella

CAPELLODINHO
Delhomme

Hasselbeck

Plummer

All except Big Ben were undrafted, not highly-thought of free agents or low-round choices.

Recent SB winners include Brady (6th round), Johnson (10th-rd or something), Warner (undrafted) and Dilfer (1st-round, but ended up as a free-agent caretaker for the team that won it).

When are teams going to stop blowing early picks on these guys? Looking towards April, you see two of the top-three at the draft are going to ignore their sizeable holes on their roster and go QB again.

:crazy:
Come on, Cappy, you're better than this.Yes, from 2000-2005, 1 1st round QB won a SB.

From 1993-1999, 6 super bowls were won by a QB drafted in the first round, and the remaining one was won by a second rounder.

I can make anything true if I pick the right years to analyze.
This is quite the trend now. 1993 was a loooong time ago in NFL years. I just think it's noteworthy that teams are winning with bargain-basement QBs. Look at the QBs that played significant minutes for playoff (or playoff contenders) teams this year -- Orton, Simms, Brunell, Delhomme, Brady, Hasselbeck, Plummer, Garrard, etc. You have guys in the league like Bulger, Trent Green who also were very late picks having great careers.

Sure, guys like Manning and Palmer work out, and every position has players that bust -- but now more than ever I think it's quite apparent that you do not need to spend a top-5 pick on a "franchise" QB to have any success in this league. Put a great defense together, run the ball, and get somebody in there who won't make mistakes.

 

Capella

CAPELLODINHO
and btw Keys, please don't patronize me with the "you're better than this" crap.tia

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Fla\/\/ed

Footballguy
What I see is that the three veteran QBs in the playoffs were late blossomers who needed time, opportunity, and the right situation to develop.  Their current teams, and not the teams who drafted them, reaped the benefits.  But it is quite strange that you can go the whole way back to at least 1994 and find only one 1st or 2nd round QB who played in a Super Bowl - McNabb.
What??1994?

Aikman, Young, and Elway down?
How about Favre and Bledsoe?
Favre was a second round pick.
 

Keys Myaths

Pokerguy
What I see is that the three veteran QBs in the playoffs were late blossomers who needed time, opportunity, and the right situation to develop. Their current teams, and not the teams who drafted them, reaped the benefits. But it is quite strange that you can go the whole way back to at least 1994 and find only one 1st or 2nd round QB who played in a Super Bowl - McNabb.
What??1994?

Aikman, Young, and Elway down?
How about Favre and Bledsoe?
I just left them out, actually. Those three were the first rounders who won.And Cappy, you might have a point, you might not. I think we still need a couple of years to decide, though. 6 is not a good sample size to make any conclusions out of, IMO...as demonstrated by the 6 years immediately prior to that.

 

Joe Bryant

Guide
Staff member
Value can be found for sure. It's great when it happens.But this looks different when you start throwing in players like Carson Palmer, Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, Drew Brees, Daunte Culpepper, Brett Favre, Byron Leftwich, Donovan McNabb, Steve McNair, Ben Roethlisberger and Mike Vick it starts looking a little different. Sure, some like Favre and McNair are winding down their career but I think most of those teams are pretty happy with what they did there in the first and second rounds.It's dangerous business for sure. Lots of Akili Smiths and Tim Couches and Heath Shulers out there. But I also understand why teams try to take their best shot at that position when they have the opportunity.Should be interesting.J

 

Keys Myaths

Pokerguy
What I see is that the three veteran QBs in the playoffs were late blossomers who needed time, opportunity, and the right situation to develop. Their current teams, and not the teams who drafted them, reaped the benefits. But it is quite strange that you can go the whole way back to at least 1994 and find only one 1st or 2nd round QB who played in a Super Bowl - McNabb.
What??1994?

Aikman, Young, and Elway down?
How about Favre and Bledsoe?
Favre was a second round pick.
Jetpack's qualifications were first or second round.
 

Fla\/\/ed

Footballguy
What I see is that the three veteran QBs in the playoffs were late blossomers who needed time, opportunity, and the right situation to develop.  Their current teams, and not the teams who drafted them, reaped the benefits.  But it is quite strange that you can go the whole way back to at least 1994 and find only one 1st or 2nd round QB who played in a Super Bowl - McNabb.
What??1994?

Aikman, Young, and Elway down?
How about Favre and Bledsoe?
Favre was a second round pick.
Jetpack's qualifications were first or second round.
:thumbup:
 

Capella

CAPELLODINHO
What I see is that the three veteran QBs in the playoffs were late blossomers who needed time, opportunity, and the right situation to develop.  Their current teams, and not the teams who drafted them, reaped the benefits.  But it is quite strange that you can go the whole way back to at least 1994 and find only one 1st or 2nd round QB who played in a Super Bowl - McNabb.
What??1994?

Aikman, Young, and Elway down?
How about Favre and Bledsoe?
Favre was a second round pick.
Jetpack's qualifications were first or second round.
Mine are really top-10 to top-20 picks. Those are 'franchise' picks that can make or break a team for many years.A second-round pick? Not so much.

 

Jason Wood

Zoo York
Delhomme

Hasselbeck

Plummer

All except Big Ben were undrafted, not highly-thought of free agents or low-round choices.

Recent SB winners include Brady (6th round), Johnson (10th-rd or something), Warner (undrafted) and Dilfer (1st-round, but ended up as a free-agent caretaker for the team that won it).

When are teams going to stop blowing early picks on these guys? Looking towards April, you see two of the top-three at the draft are going to ignore their sizeable holes on their roster and go QB again.

:crazy:
Come on, Cappy, you're better than this.Yes, from 2000-2005, 1 1st round QB won a SB.

From 1993-1999, 6 super bowls were won by a QB drafted in the first round, and the remaining one was won by a second rounder.

I can make anything true if I pick the right years to analyze.
This is quite the trend now. 1993 was a loooong time ago in NFL years. I just think it's noteworthy that teams are winning with bargain-basement QBs. Look at the QBs that played significant minutes for playoff (or playoff contenders) teams this year -- Orton, Simms, Brunell, Delhomme, Brady, Hasselbeck, Plummer, Garrard, etc. You have guys in the league like Bulger, Trent Green who also were very late picks having great careers.

Sure, guys like Manning and Palmer work out, and every position has players that bust -- but now more than ever I think it's quite apparent that you do not need to spend a top-5 pick on a "franchise" QB to have any success in this league. Put a great defense together, run the ball, and get somebody in there who won't make mistakes.
I'm not sure where I stand on this concept as a whole, but Cappy is right to bring this point up. Remember, the NFL today is MUCH different than it was back in 1993. Not only have we had the advent of free agency, but now teams have become masters of contract manipulation and cap management. One could make a credible argument that in today's NFL, having a big chunk of your cap $$$ on one player makes it difficult to win a Super Bowl. Obviously since QB is the highest paid position [and the high 1st rounders = glamour boys paid the most], it would tend to be more pronounced with those guys.But I suspect the ultimate answer lies more with teams maintaining cap flexibility which is often impossible when you're forced into signing a young, inexperienced player to a massive upfront contract.

 

Keys Myaths

Pokerguy
Mine are really top-10 to top-20 picks. Those are 'franchise' picks that can make or break a team for many years.

A second-round pick? Not so much.
I guess my question would be Joe's question...What position do you take that'll produce better results?

 

Capella

CAPELLODINHO
Mine are really top-10 to top-20 picks. Those are 'franchise' picks that can make or break a team for many years.

A second-round pick? Not so much.
I guess my question would be Joe's question...What position do you take that'll produce better results?
I dunno. I'm not an NFL GM. I'm sure every position has its share of busts, but it seems to me more teams spend higher, premium picks on QBs than any other position.It's not really fair to compare running backs to QBs. One RB has been a #1 pick in the past 10 years -- not the same thing.

 

Capella

CAPELLODINHO
Delhomme

Hasselbeck

Plummer

All except Big Ben were undrafted, not highly-thought of free agents or low-round choices.

Recent SB winners include Brady (6th round), Johnson (10th-rd or something), Warner (undrafted) and Dilfer (1st-round, but ended up as a free-agent caretaker for the team that won it).

When are teams going to stop blowing early picks on these guys? Looking towards April, you see two of the top-three at the draft are going to ignore their sizeable holes on their roster and go QB again.

:crazy:
Come on, Cappy, you're better than this.Yes, from 2000-2005, 1 1st round QB won a SB.

From 1993-1999, 6 super bowls were won by a QB drafted in the first round, and the remaining one was won by a second rounder.

I can make anything true if I pick the right years to analyze.
This is quite the trend now. 1993 was a loooong time ago in NFL years. I just think it's noteworthy that teams are winning with bargain-basement QBs. Look at the QBs that played significant minutes for playoff (or playoff contenders) teams this year -- Orton, Simms, Brunell, Delhomme, Brady, Hasselbeck, Plummer, Garrard, etc. You have guys in the league like Bulger, Trent Green who also were very late picks having great careers.

Sure, guys like Manning and Palmer work out, and every position has players that bust -- but now more than ever I think it's quite apparent that you do not need to spend a top-5 pick on a "franchise" QB to have any success in this league. Put a great defense together, run the ball, and get somebody in there who won't make mistakes.
I'm not sure where I stand on this concept as a whole, but Cappy is right to bring this point up. Remember, the NFL today is MUCH different than it was back in 1993. Not only have we had the advent of free agency, but now teams have become masters of contract manipulation and cap management. One could make a credible argument that in today's NFL, having a big chunk of your cap $$$ on one player makes it difficult to win a Super Bowl. Obviously since QB is the highest paid position [and the high 1st rounders = glamour boys paid the most], it would tend to be more pronounced with those guys.But I suspect the ultimate answer lies more with teams maintaining cap flexibility which is often impossible when you're forced into signing a young, inexperienced player to a massive upfront contract.
Bingo.
 

Joe Bryant

Guide
Staff member
Sure, guys like Manning and Palmer work out, and every position has players that bust -- but now more than ever I think it's quite apparent that you do not need to spend a top-5 pick on a "franchise" QB to have any success in this league. Put a great defense together, run the ball, and get somebody in there who won't make mistakes.
The "caretaker QB" is certainly one way to do it. Ravens are the obvious example. The 2005 Bears gave it a shot this year.But it's a limiting and pretty unappealing style for most. I've written a good bit before that I love the fact there are different styles that can win in this league but I think most people like that QB leader style.

The Patriots have won Super Bowls for several different reasons but I don't know anyone who doesn't put the outstanding play of Tom Brady right near the top of why they win.

In my opinion, his draft slot is an indication that scouts were wrong about him. Not that you don't need a great QB to win.

J

 

Jason Wood

Zoo York
Mine are really top-10 to top-20 picks. Those are 'franchise' picks that can make or break a team for many years.

A second-round pick? Not so much.
I guess my question would be Joe's question...What position do you take that'll produce better results?
The easy answer would be...the best available player. It's far too easy for GMs and personnel evaluators to throw the top two or three rated QBs on their board atop their overall big board because conventional widsom, media scrutiny, ownership chiding and fanboy shouting will applaud taking the QB as the "necessary" move.I've long believed that GMs and personnel people don't do an adequate enough job of really understanding the RELATIVE value of players at different positions in a given draft or free agency period.

This is not to say taking a non-QB high is always the right answer, you have to get that pick right too certainly. But I can recall the Rams. When they took Pace, there wree a LOT of doubters. Yet when they took Laurence Phillips, everyone was gushing over his potential.

There are no easy answers, but considering an NFL team is comprised of 53 active guys every Sunday, a practice squad, and 22 starters...you have to wonder about the collective wisdom of using the top overall pick on one position 55% of the time [11 QBs in 20 years].

http://www.drafthistory.com/top_picks/toppick.html

 

Jason Wood

Zoo York
Sure, guys like Manning and Palmer work out, and every position has players that bust -- but now more than ever I think it's quite apparent that you do not need to spend a top-5 pick on a "franchise" QB to have any success in this league. Put a great defense together, run the ball, and get somebody in there who won't make mistakes.
The "caretaker QB" is certainly one way to do it. Ravens are the obvious example. The 2005 Bears gave it a shot this year.But it's a limiting and pretty unappealing style for most. I've written a good bit before that I love the fact there are different styles that can win in this league but I think most people like that QB leader style.

The Patriots have won Super Bowls for several different reasons but I don't know anyone who doesn't put the outstanding play of Tom Brady right near the top of why they win.

In my opinion, his draft slot is an indication that scouts were wrong about him. Not that you don't need a great QB to win.

J
I agree with Joe that scouts simply missed on Brady. But that gets back to my point regarding the scouting process. In my opinion, the fundamental underpinnings of scouting the QB position is massively flawed and we're beginning to see that now that free agency has caused teams to give non 1st rounders more and more chances to prove themselves at the position.
 

Capella

CAPELLODINHO
In my opinion, his draft slot is an indication that scouts were wrong about him. Not that you don't need a great QB to win.

J
Well I would definitely agree with that. But the main point of what I was originally trying to get at was that you don't need to spend a 'premium' pick on a QB to win. Kind of got sidetracked into the "you don't need a great QB" stance, which I also agree with, but realize it's not exactly the same topic.But in the NFL this year, and in past years, I think it's been proven again and again you don't need that dominant QB to win games.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

msommer

Footballguy
But someone has to go #1.Anither thing that makes QBs more likely to go #1 than other positions is 'what are you prepared to pay your OL/DL/LB/RB/WR/DB'Are you willing to invest a 25 million signing bonus in any of those?

 

Keys Myaths

Pokerguy
In my opinion, his draft slot is an indication that scouts were wrong about him. Not that you don't need a great QB to win.

J
Well I would definitely agree with that. But the main point of what I was originally trying to get at was that you don't need to spend a 'premium' pick on a QB to win. Kind of got sidetracked into the "you don't need a great QB" stance, which I also agree with, but realize it's not exactly the same topic.But in the NFL this year, and in past years, I think it's been proven again and again you don't need that dominant QB to win games.
Dominant QB, or a dominant passing game?Those are two different things, IMO.

I believe Brady is a dominant QB, but the Patriots never had a dominant passing game.

 

Jason Wood

Zoo York
In my opinion, his draft slot is an indication that scouts were wrong about him. Not that you don't need a great QB to win.

J
Well I would definitely agree with that. But the main point of what I was originally trying to get at was that you don't need to spend a 'premium' pick on a QB to win. Kind of got sidetracked into the "you don't need a great QB" stance, which I also agree with, but realize it's not exactly the same topic.But in the NFL this year, and in past years, I think it's been proven again and again you don't need that dominant QB to win games.
This is where I think Joe and Cappy's points combine to really hit the nail on the head. It's hard to win a SB without a good to great QB, no doubt. However, there is more and more evidence that you can find/develop good to great QBs from guys that don't come with top-5 1st round pedigrees. :yes:

 

Keys Myaths

Pokerguy
But someone has to go #1.

Anither thing that makes QBs more likely to go #1 than other positions is 'what are you prepared to pay your OL/DL/LB/RB/WR/DB'

Are you willing to invest a 25 million signing bonus in any of those?
Yes.If I was getting the next Willie Roaf as the #1 pick, I'd have NO problem locking him in for a lot of money.

 

Capella

CAPELLODINHO
In my opinion, his draft slot is an indication that scouts were wrong about him. Not that you don't need a great QB to win.

J
Well I would definitely agree with that. But the main point of what I was originally trying to get at was that you don't need to spend a 'premium' pick on a QB to win. Kind of got sidetracked into the "you don't need a great QB" stance, which I also agree with, but realize it's not exactly the same topic.But in the NFL this year, and in past years, I think it's been proven again and again you don't need that dominant QB to win games.
Dominant QB, or a dominant passing game?Those are two different things, IMO.

I believe Brady is a dominant QB, but the Patriots never had a dominant passing game.
Would you consider any of the QBs left dominant? Or their passing game dominant? I wouldn't. Pats got a dominant passing game this year.

 

redman

Footballguy
Delhomme

Hasselbeck

Plummer

All except Big Ben were undrafted, not highly-thought of free agents or low-round choices.

Recent SB winners include Brady (6th round), Johnson (10th-rd or something), Warner (undrafted) and Dilfer (1st-round, but ended up as a free-agent caretaker for the team that won it).

When are teams going to stop blowing early picks on these guys? Looking towards April, you see two of the top-three at the draft are going to ignore their sizeable holes on their roster and go QB again.

:crazy:
And before Warner, you had Elway, Aikman, and Favre as your recent Super Bowl winners. Having a stud QB allows you a bigger margin for error on the overall quality of your team.

The "mediocre" QB's have inevitably been surrounded by either superior defensive talent (Tampa; Baltimore), amazingly explosive offensive talent (St. Louis), or by a team that has demonstrated unique chemistry and all around strength (New England).

I'm not saying you're flat wrong. There's certainly more than one way to skin this cat. I just don't think that making a blanket statement about blue-chip QB's being unnecessary is quite accurate.

 

Keys Myaths

Pokerguy
In my opinion, his draft slot is an indication that scouts were wrong about him. Not that you don't need a great QB to win.

J
Well I would definitely agree with that. But the main point of what I was originally trying to get at was that you don't need to spend a 'premium' pick on a QB to win. Kind of got sidetracked into the "you don't need a great QB" stance, which I also agree with, but realize it's not exactly the same topic.But in the NFL this year, and in past years, I think it's been proven again and again you don't need that dominant QB to win games.
This is where I think Joe and Cappy's points combine to really hit the nail on the head. It's hard to win a SB without a good to great QB, no doubt. However, there is more and more evidence that you can find/develop good to great QBs from guys that don't come with top-5 1st round pedigrees. :yes:
I'm starting to come around on these arguments, honestly, and basically, am coming to agree with this.You usually need a very good-great QB, but where you find that QB is not always in the first round...

 

Keys Myaths

Pokerguy
In my opinion, his draft slot is an indication that scouts were wrong about him. Not that you don't need a great QB to win.

J
Well I would definitely agree with that. But the main point of what I was originally trying to get at was that you don't need to spend a 'premium' pick on a QB to win. Kind of got sidetracked into the "you don't need a great QB" stance, which I also agree with, but realize it's not exactly the same topic.But in the NFL this year, and in past years, I think it's been proven again and again you don't need that dominant QB to win games.
Dominant QB, or a dominant passing game?Those are two different things, IMO.

I believe Brady is a dominant QB, but the Patriots never had a dominant passing game.
Would you consider any of the QBs left dominant? Or their passing game dominant? I wouldn't. Pats got a dominant passing game this year.
Dominant? No. Very, very good? I'd consider Hasselbeck and Big Ben on that level. Very good? Delhomme there. Better than average? Plummer.
 

Wadsworth

Footballguy
RBs on the top 4 teams:

Willie Parker - who?

Nick Goings - who?

Mike Anderson - who?

Shaun Alexander - 1st round pick

Not much different than the QBs, eh? Even if you use Stephen Davis for the Panthers, he'd fall into the Jake Plummer category -- and I think SD was a 4th round pick anyway.
Keep going.. Look at the WRs for the four teams.
 

msommer

Footballguy
The "caretaker QB" is certainly one way to do it. Ravens are the obvious example. The 2005 Bears gave it a shot this year.

But it's a limiting and pretty unappealing style for most.
I agree with this. I don't recall hearing massive fan protests when Dilfer was axed and Grbac was hailed as the best thing since sliced bread. IIRC people were talking dynasty...I would be highly surprised if the Bears fans would react negatively to the Bears signing a vet this off season and relegating Grossman and Orton to backup spots. Certainly not more than grumbling 'Jerry Angelo is an idiot, we should have never drafted Grossman to begin with'

 

Capella

CAPELLODINHO
In my opinion, his draft slot is an indication that scouts were wrong about him. Not that you don't need a great QB to win.

J
Well I would definitely agree with that. But the main point of what I was originally trying to get at was that you don't need to spend a 'premium' pick on a QB to win. Kind of got sidetracked into the "you don't need a great QB" stance, which I also agree with, but realize it's not exactly the same topic.But in the NFL this year, and in past years, I think it's been proven again and again you don't need that dominant QB to win games.
This is where I think Joe and Cappy's points combine to really hit the nail on the head. It's hard to win a SB without a good to great QB, no doubt. However, there is more and more evidence that you can find/develop good to great QBs from guys that don't come with top-5 1st round pedigrees. :yes:
Again, Wood makes my point better than I can. :goodposting:
 

msommer

Footballguy
But someone has to go #1.

Anither thing that makes QBs more likely to go #1 than other positions is 'what are you prepared to pay your OL/DL/LB/RB/WR/DB'

Are you willing to invest a 25 million signing bonus in any of those?
Yes.If I was getting the next Willie Roaf as the #1 pick, I'd have NO problem locking him in for a lot of money.
You only have the talent that is there and the evaluation of the hourin D'Brick, McNeill, Winston, Scott or Justice is there one you'd sign to 25 mill?

What about Gallery?

Levi Jones?

Alex Barron?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Muahahaha

Footballguy
The answer to what position to take: none of the above. Two economists, Cade Massey & Richard Thaler, concluded that the best value in the draft occurs, IIRC, somewhere in the end of the 1st round and beginning of the 2nd. They say that the very top draft picks are way overvalued & the teams that take them get saddled with huge contracts against the cap for unproven players. Hence the name of their paper: "The Loser's Curse: Overconfidence vs. Market Efficiency in the National Football League Draft"It is a great read. Basically argues that the 49ers are screwed by continually having top draft choices & the Pats are in the perfect draft slot year after year.The NFL pays these very top draft choices way too much.Here is the link if you guys are bored at work: faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~cadem/bio/massey%20&%20thaler%20-%20loser's%20curse.pdf

 
Last edited by a moderator:

DropKick

Footballguy
There are also teams that have stayed mediocre or worse for years because of poor QB play. You can find a quality QB, RB, or WR (or any other position) without blue-chip pedigree. And there are disappointing 1st round choices. But that doesn't mean you won't find an overall better level of talent in the early rounds. There are clear measurables in player evaluation, like size and speed but there are other variables that are difficult to define: heart, coachability, commitment, desire, personality flaws, decision making, etc.I don't thing you target any single position in the 1st round but take what the draft brings which changes every year. You look for a franchise type player. Hopefully, one that fits your needs. I think you trade up or down depending on what you see available. And, not unlike a fantasy draft, you target "value" guys in the later rounds that you think can fall through the cracks.

 

Keys Myaths

Pokerguy
But someone has to go #1.

Anither thing that makes QBs more likely to go #1 than other positions is 'what are you prepared to pay your OL/DL/LB/RB/WR/DB'

Are you willing to invest a 25 million signing bonus in any of those?
Yes.If I was getting the next Willie Roaf as the #1 pick, I'd have NO problem locking him in for a lot of money.
You only have the talent that is there and the evaluation of the hourin D'Brick, McNeill, Winston, Scott or Justice is there one you'd sign to 25 mill?

What about Gallery?

Levi Jones?

Alex Barron?
I'd sign Ferguson to a long term deal for top 3 money, no question.And he's the best OL in the draft, so he's the one that deserves that money.

So to answer your question, yes.

 

msommer

Footballguy
Two economists, Cade Massey & Richard Thaler, concluded that the best value in the draft occurs, IIRC, somewhere in the end of the 1st round and beginning of the 2nd. They say that the very top draft picks are way overvalued & the teams that take them get saddled with huge contracts against the cap for unproven players. Hence the name of their paper: "The Loser's Curse: Overconfidence vs. Market Efficiency in the National Football League Draft"
IIRC the best value was the #43 pick.I think they got it wrong.The obvious answer is 42Edited to add the quote as I was not fast enough
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top