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

[Joe Bryant]

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.

Hi Jason,I guess it really depends on how tight one limits the pool. If we're talking about teams being able to have success without a top 5 pick, that's a really tight pool. Meaning 25 players over the last 5 years fall into that. I'm sure someone can look it up but I'd wonder how many teams that are now successful even had a top 5 overall pick over the last 5 years?

J

 

[msommer]

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.

The obviously HOU should pick him i/o messing around with Bush and Young

 

[Keys Myaths]

I'm sure someone can look it up but I'd wonder how many teams that are now successful even had a top 5 overall pick over the last 5 years?

I'm defining success as a playoff berth this year.2004: SD (1), Giants (4), and Washington (5) are all successful.

2003: Cincy (1)

2002: Carolina (2), SD (5)

2001: Cincy (4), SD (5)

2000: Washington (2,3) Cincy (4)

 

[Keys Myaths]

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.

The obviously HOU should pick him i/o messing around with Bush and Young

I've been on the record a few times saying this same thing.But, they could easily trade down (and get a few more picks) and still get Ferguson.

So, yes, I would fully support that.

 

[Sammy3469]

I'm sure someone can look it up but I'd wonder how many teams that are now successful even had a top 5 overall pick over the last 5 years?

I'm defining success as a playoff berth this year.2004: SD (1), Giants (4), and Washington (5) are all successful.

2003: Cincy (1)

2002: Carolina (2), SD (5)

2001: Cincy (4), SD (5)

2000: Washington (2,3) Cincy (4)

and coincidently or not, those are the only teams that really hit on those picks. Carolina with Peppers, the Bucs will Caddy, the Giants with Eli, the Skins with Taylor, SD with Tomlinson and Jammer, the Bengals with Palmer. (I'd also say that it takes about 5 years to fix your cap from Top 5 busts since the Skins and Bengals really didn't do that well with Samuels, Arrington, and Warrick in 2000)Your either right with that pick (whatever position it is) or your really up a creek because you've really damaged your salary cap.

 

[Born to Run]

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.

Capella, there is a flaw in your logic. Late round successes like Brady and Warner are well known as are the 1st rd busts that have been mentioned. But how often do those 2nd day QB picks turn into blue chip or better players? I have not ran the numbers, but for every Brady where are a bunch of guys that end up driving the taxi squad, at least until the next late round pick shows up. So as bad as the percentages may be in round 1 they get much worse in the late rounds. And QBs need playing time to develop. NFL teams can only offer significant first team playing time to 2-3 candidates so you can't bring in a boatload of late round and unsigned FA picks and see who turns into a star. Even if that 1st round QB pick only has a 50/50 chance of turning into a solid NFL player that is better than rolling the dice on a late rounder.

 

[David Yudkin]

I didn't read the whole thread, but I had a different perspective that didn't necessarily pertain only to QBs.As I see it, teams that are winning are getting a lot of production for minimal investments. So guys that fall in the "Top 5" draft pick category that bust are costing teams a lot of wasted cap room (at any position).But to take it a step further, teams that have "Top 5" picks that DON'T bust are ALSO investing a lot of money and taking away available financial resources at other positions.If you look at the Patriots model, other than Seymour, the Pats don't really have a ton of early first round talent on the roster, and they don't normally invest big $$$ on anyone (save Brady, but even he came at a discount compared to what he could have signed for on the open market).If you look at a team like the Colts, the trio of manning, Harrison, and Edge--while clearly very productive--may have caused the team to be weaker at the other 50 roster spots by not having the remaining bank roll to secure appropriate talent.A bit like fantasy football. If you had three early draft picks but none until the 14th round, you're probably not going to win.So IMO, this is not strictly a QB debate, it's a debate about how teams invest draft picks and cap dollars.I've also wondered over the years why teams don't focus more on top tier line play on both sides of the ball, as better OL play will make a pro QB or pro RB look great, and good DL play will often allow LB and DB to be less than stellar but still productive. A team could have a great QB or WR, but without any pass protection those guys will suffer tremendously.

 

[Wadsworth]

I didn't read the whole thread, but I had a different perspective that didn't necessarily pertain only to QBs.

As I see it, teams that are winning are getting a lot of production for minimal investments. So guys that fall in the "Top 5" draft pick category that bust are costing teams a lot of wasted cap room (at any position).

But to take it a step further, teams that have "Top 5" picks that DON'T bust are ALSO investing a lot of money and taking away available financial resources at other positions.

If you look at the Patriots model, other than Seymour, the Pats don't really have a ton of early first round talent on the roster, and they don't normally invest big $$$ on anyone (save Brady, but even he came at a discount compared to what he could have signed for on the open market).

If you look at a team like the Colts, the trio of manning, Harrison, and Edge--while clearly very productive--may have caused the team to be weaker at the other 50 roster spots by not having the remaining bank roll to secure appropriate talent.

A bit like fantasy football. If you had three early draft picks but none until the 14th round, you're probably not going to win.

So IMO, this is not strictly a QB debate, it's a debate about how teams invest draft picks and cap dollars.

I've also wondered over the years why teams don't focus more on top tier line play on both sides of the ball, as better OL play will make a pro QB or pro RB look great, and good DL play will often allow LB and DB to be less than stellar but still productive. A team could have a great QB or WR, but without any pass protection those guys will suffer tremendously.

I agree with almost everything you said in the post, but the bolded part in particular has long been a peeve of mind as well. It seems so simple. Yet every year, teams that should be looking at linemen fall in love with some skill player and draft him early. My guess it that measurables for the linemen are not close to as clear as with the QBs, WRs, RBs, Corners, and even linebackers. DE have sacks, but that's a hard stat to translate from college to pro. At the combines who pays plays much attention to the lineman unless they do a huge number of reps or get under 5.0 in the 40. Even then it's hard to translate those combine numbers into pro potential.Quality linemen make everyone else's job easier. For my money Mike Peterson was the best MLB in the AFC this season. And that had everything to do with playing behind Stroud and Henderson. Larry Johnson and Shaun Alexander? Some very good O-lines in KC and Seattle. It doesn't mean that Peterson, LJ and Shaun aren't good, but it does mean that their jobs are a lot easier.

 

[guderian]

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.

Jason is right, it is all about economics. The answer is that you need to sign a free agent QB to a favorable contract and be lucky enough to have them play up to the level of a first rounder. Each NFL team has a 1/32 chance of winning the superbowl (theoretically), so a lot of teams can have a "good" year, but to be the team that puts it all together to win the SB you need to get $10 MM performance out of your $1 MM QB. With respect to the teams that are going to draft Leinart and Young, well the Superbowl isn't really in their sites right now is it? These teams are merely looking to make the playoffs, and I think you'd find that the first round QBs performed much better at attaining that goal than the FA's or later rounders.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Capella, there is a flaw in your logic. Late round successes like Brady and Warner are well known as are the 1st rd busts that have been mentioned. But how often do those 2nd day QB picks turn into blue chip or better players? I have not ran the numbers, but for every Brady where are a bunch of guys that end up driving the taxi squad, at least until the next late round pick shows up. So as bad as the percentages may be in round 1 they get much worse in the late rounds.

True, but it's much cheaper to draft 2-3 late-rounders than it is to take a QB with a top-5 pick.

And QBs need playing time to develop.

Maybe, maybe not. Some QBs just naturally rise to the top. Culpepper, Pennington, and Brady are 3 QBs who come to mind that sat on the bench and were just fine their first year as starters.

Even if that 1st round QB pick only has a 50/50 chance of turning into a solid NFL player that is better than rolling the dice on a late rounder.

Except that the odds aren't even 50/50.

 

[Pipes]

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.

Capella, there is a flaw in your logic. Late round successes like Brady and Warner are well known as are the 1st rd busts that have been mentioned. But how often do those 2nd day QB picks turn into blue chip or better players? I have not ran the numbers, but for every Brady where are a bunch of guys that end up driving the taxi squad, at least until the next late round pick shows up. So as bad as the percentages may be in round 1 they get much worse in the late rounds. And QBs need playing time to develop. NFL teams can only offer significant first team playing time to 2-3 candidates so you can't bring in a boatload of late round and unsigned FA picks and see who turns into a star. Even if that 1st round QB pick only has a 50/50 chance of turning into a solid NFL player that is better than rolling the dice on a late rounder.

 

[MutantEnemies]

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.

Or the kicking of Vinatieri - maybe the answer to who you should draft first is kickers!

 

[jeff_eaglz]

All excellent points above, so I won't try and quote 5 or 6 posts.Another way of looking at this is how scarce is talent at a particular position. For example, how many of you are drooling over the NFC Pro Bowl QB candidates? Brees at 4 and Plummer at 5 were comparable to the best that the NFC could offer. Every year we see the following:1. A contending team loses a QB and someone with far less skill has to drop his clipboard and put his helmet on. The team struggles to compete for the rest of the season (Examples: Jets, Eagles, Rams)2. A contending team also loses their starter, yet a 2nd QB steps in and manages the offense - not lead, but manage - until hopefully the starter can return and pick up where things were left off. (Bears, Jags, Vikings) 3. Teams that cannot decide who the starter is and juggle the position. Inevitably the team suffers as a whole and uncertainty on offense extends into the following year. (Cards, Lions) A team needs a leader in the huddle and someone to run the offense. That is never a RB, TE, or WR. It is always the man under center. He touches the ball on every play and has the ability to decide much of the outcome / performance of the entire offense. No other player has this.Teams have but one leader. There is no real QBBC in the NFL - this isn't college where you can swap them on each series. RBBC and multiple TE and WR sets are prevalent. If a RB goes down, there is usually a capable replacement with less of a drop in talent than if you go to a #2 QB. There are multiple RB candidates in both FA and the draft each year, but how many starting QBs are available each offseason? Would it be easier to get a LaMont Jordan in a trade, or a Billy Volek? Solid backup QBs are rarer and more coveted.With the complexity of the position, teams need to get talent when they believe it is available to fill this critical role. In addition, the first round pick not only gets big $$ but also a long term deal. RBs have an average life span of 3-4 years. Starting QBs last much longer, and are given more time to learn the position. RBs have to produce and get thrown in to the fray often in their first year, but no one would argue against a rookie QB learning the ropes and standing on the sidelines for their first year in the league, especially if there is an adequate starter already on the roster. Philip Rivers is still coveted around the NFL even having not played the last two seasons. Name a top draft RB or WR that is afforded to years on the sideline AND has that value.QBs are rarer to find - especially good ones. They are valued higher as such, so teams must take bigger gambles / risks to try and find their franchise offensive leader. The risks / reward is always there. Sure Ryan Leaf and Akili Smith happen, but the franchise took their shot and most likely would do it again.

 

[Marvelous]

Another way to look at the qb position:Last off season, who where the top qbs available and which ones were capable of leading a team to the Super Bowl? The top qbs to switch teams were: Kurt Warner, Jeff Garcia, Fiedler, and Brad Johnson. I doubt many at the time thought these any of these qbs are the valued care-taker qb that can take a team to the Super Bowl. These year, the top qbs available are Dilfer, Kitna, Ramsey, maybe some others. These are marginal starting qbs. It's hard to picture developing any of these into the care-taker qb for a Super Bowl, although Ramsey has some up side.It is not easy to get qb talent. And if your qb play is bad, your team will have a bad year.

 

[TommyGilmore]

So IMO, this is not strictly a QB debate, it's a debate about how teams invest draft picks and cap dollars.

Plus, it costs more money to invest in a QB, especially if that QB spends his first 2 years on the bench. You think San Diego might have made the playoffs if they'd spent a draft pick on a lineman instead of Rivers?

 

[coolnerd]

One thing to consider is the manner in which teams draft at the top of the first round that once it gets to be around the middle of the round. At the top of the draft regardless of the position, teams tend to go for the potential superstar even if the player in question has flaws. Look at the three players most talked about for the Texans, bush Young and Ferguson. All are dynamic physical talents, but have holes that have to be overcome in order for them to reach thier potential. Seems to be a boom/bust mentality. The QBs (or any position) who are able to overcome the weaknesses are the ones who make the pick worthwhile. One thing successful teams have determined is that certain position will resolved by throwing plenty of numbers, but relative few dollars at getting the job done. In other words, ecomonics force you to get good at finding value. Value at the top generally means not choosing a bust regardless of position and then get more bang for your buck by working the bottom of the draft and low level FA in other spots.