If You Had a Crystal Ball... (1 Viewer)

[Bob Magaw]

and assuming you had NOTHING at either position (lets use the rams as a proxy here, with their decision between bradford and suh with the #1 overall pick)...

who would you pick...

this is of course an actual football, and not a fantasy football question...

trying to strip some clutter away from the BPA concept, and get at the issue of relative positional value...

i think most would agree a stud QB is worth more than a stud DT...

at what point, though, is an almost stud QB, worth more than a stud DT... or not?

i posted the below (in mid-thread ) at a rams homer site... when i posed the question exactly as above, a few people said, no brainer, take the top 3 DT... that was all the responses, don't think anybody said they would take the QB...

i was surprised by this... the logic was, that is close to top 15, which is middle of the pack... the name orton was mentioned... when i looked at the list (i left unsaid what constituted top 12... as usual, my method had to catch up with the original inspiration/idea), and more on that later, i saw names like eli manning and mcnabb...

more explantion to follow, but in the end, what i was in effect asking, was, for a team like rams this season with massive, arguably similarly extreme needs for a star QB OR DT, would you rather have top 12 QB like mcnabb or eli manning (make your own list of top 12 top QBs in league, not accounting for age, take the #12 QB from it, and assume you have them as a rookie & through their prime... same for top 3 DT), or kevin williams (haynesworth... somebody else?)...

_____________________________________

i didn't specify well what constitutes "top 12"...

different names surface, if you parse by...

QB Rating, Passing Yards, Completion %, Passing TDs... scouting consensus would be another way...

not accounting for age, just trying to order a top 12 (draft pedigree included), my list would look something like below (order doesn't matter too much WITHIN this 12, just trying to establish a rough cutoff, or expected value around that point)...

1 - manning - 1.1

2 - brees - 2.1

3 - brady - 6.33

4 - favre - 2.6

5 - rodgers - 1.24

6 - warner - UFA (retired now, but numbers amassed in '09)

7 - palmer - 1.1 (if we got as rookie, and palmer in his prime, assuming he is healthy... he had a lot of good years before recent knee/elbow injuries)

8 - romo - UFA

9 - rivers - 1.4

10 - roethlisberger - 1.11

11 - mcnabb - 1.2

12 - e. manning - 1.1

* names left, some which others might include in THEIR top 12 (schaub - 3.27, cutler - 1.11, vince young - 1.3, ryan - 1.3, flacco - 1.18, stafford - 1.1, sanchez - 1.5?)

some teams struck gold, notably two UFAs (warner & romo), one 6th (brady), one 3rd (schaub) & 2 2nds (favre & brees)..

of higher pedigree, there were thirteen 1sts (see above)...

so including rounds 2-7 + UFA status (seven possibilities if counting), totals 6 from those rounds... thirteen, more than double, were first rounders... of those thirteen, nine were top 5... the remaining four, roethlisberger and cutler both just missed top 10 (1.11 each), flacco was 1.18, & rodgers 1.24 (kind of weird year when not a lot of teams needed QBs & he dropped)...

BTW, i wasn't consciously trying to stack the deck or cherry pick high pedigree picks... i like the upside of those on this list, better than many of the rest... for instance, i left off 1st rounders, even high pedigree QBs, like alex smith, jamarcus russell & brady quinn, as i don't like their upside, or am more unsure of them than the others i included... and some might even include a guy like delhomme, not for last year obviously, but the body of his work... in my above list, especially with longer term vets, i definitely wasn't just going by last year, but their overall body of work...

another more delimited variation of this... if rams were allowed to have their choice of any of the top QBs in two past drafts... ie - ryan, stafford or sanchez, with the little we know now, would you rather have one of them or a young kevin williams... i'd take ryan or stafford...

back to the original question...

orton came up in some of the above statistical categories...

so did names like eli manning & donovan mcnabb (in some higher, others lower), matt ryan, etc...

imo, maybe a better way to frame this is for people to come up with their own personal top 12 lists...

anyways, who are the top DTs... a healthy, motivated haynesworth (not always) is dominant... kevin williams is one of the best... i'll stop there...

if i thought/knew bradford would be as good as eli manning or a YOUNG mcnabb... there is no way i would draft one of the aforementioned DTs over the QBs?

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

DT. If I have nothing at either position my teams sucks. I can't afford to miss. Less likely to miss on the DT than the QB. Plus, if my team sucks, my D is gonna play more than my O anyway. Journey Qb's can manage games.

 

[Bob Magaw]

DT. If I have nothing at either position my teams sucks. I can't afford to miss. Less likely to miss on the DT than the QB. Plus, if my team sucks, my D is gonna play more than my O anyway. Journey Qb's can manage games.

i don't think i have seen any statistical/historical data to support that DTs bust out at a lower frequency than QBs?more to the point, this is a thought experiment in which you have a crystal ball (substitute time machine, minority report like pre-cog battery, if you wish), and you KNOW you are getting equivalent of a top 12 QB... or a top 3 DT... and you will have them for a decade...

 

[The Man With No Name]

DT

A top 3 DT is pro bowl/all pro player and a top 12 QB mostly isn't, but could be a couple times. By saying top 12, I'm guessing he will be on the lower end (9-12) most years with maybe 2-3 in the 5-6 range. A top 3 DT is, well, top 3 and that is a stud.

 

[Donsmith753]

If it was the Lions they'd still draft a WR.

 

[BassNBrew]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=549

Drew Brees 2010

Ben Roethlisberger 2009

7946 13229 2006 Peyton Manning

7739 11712 1994 Steve Young

7006 11836 1989 Joe Montana

7006 11836 1984 Joe Montana

7006 11836 1981 Joe Montana

7006 11836 1988 Joe Montana

6211 10616 1970 Johnny Unitas

5680 8169 1971 Roger Staubach

5680 8169 1977 Roger Staubach

5604 8554 1969 Len Dawson

5107 12029 1996 Brett Favre

4123 10064 1997 John Elway

4123 10064 1998 John Elway

4101 7080 1967 Bart Starr

4101 7080 1966 Bart Starr

4004 7278 1999 Kurt Warner

3845 7917 2004 Tom Brady

3845 7917 2003 Tom Brady

3845 7917 2001 Tom Brady

3339 6478 1968 Joe Namath

2919 7299 1993 Troy Aikman

2919 7299 1995 Troy Aikman

2919 7299 1992 Troy Aikman

2799 5924 1978 Terry Bradshaw

2799 5924 1979 Terry Bradshaw

2799 5924 1975 Terry Bradshaw

2799 5924 1974 Terry Bradshaw

2785 5338 1973 Bob Griese

2785 5338 1972 Bob Griese

2723 5059 1970 Earl Morrall

2294 5098 1976 Ken Stabler

2285 4954 1991 Mark Rypien

1992 5409 1982 Joe Theismann

1892 4439 1987 Doug Williams

1840 5969 2002 Brad Johnson

1810 6071 1986 Phil Simms

1359 3849 1985 Jim McMahon

1184 3739 1990 Jeff Hostetler

1153 2992 2005 Ben Roethlisberger

273 3251 1983 Jim Plunkett

273 3251 1980 Jim Plunkett

- 875 1382 2007 Eli Manning

-1275 1684 2000 Trent Dilfer

Assuming that a Super Bowl is the desired goal, this is the type of QB you need. Looks like about 1 in 4 would fit the top 12 border of lower. 3 of would would exceed that metric.

I'm still undecided.

 

[trader jake]

Quarterback is the most important position on the field and if I could secure a signal caller capable of leading a team to a championship I'd be all over it.

I would be comfortable saying that the top 12 QB's are all capable of winning a Super Bowl with any type of squad around them. A good QB makes everything easier on and off the field for NFL franchises and is the easy choice for me.

 

[Andy Herron]

QB.

Without a top signal caller any team will flounder.

A most recent example, look at the Vikings before they got Favre.

Those Williams boys didn't propel them anywhere.

 

[CaptainHook]

the elite players are the gamechangers. give me elite over above average every time at every position. (assuming i have a coaching staff that can properly utilize this players skills. its easy to negate superior talent with a system that suppresses a potentially elite player's abilities see donovan mcnabb.)

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

take the top 3 player ---- top 12 guys aren't as hard to get.

if you don't have a qb then you'll get a shot at better than top 12 in next year's draft.

if it was a top 3 qb, that'd be a different story.

 

[FUBAR]

the elite players are the gamechangers. give me elite over above average every time at every position. (assuming i have a coaching staff that can properly utilize this players skills. its easy to negate superior talent with a system that suppresses a potentially elite player's abilities see donovan mcnabb.)

Top 12 QBs are not easy to get. But - I like to win with defense and as a Titans fan I've seen what the loss of an elite DT does. So I'll take Haynesworth back please.Falcons fans might disagree as their franchise QB made a huge difference for them. So maybe it's about equal.

 

[DawnBTVS]

I'd go with the top 3 DT. This is also dependent on the defense being run because even in a 4-3, the DT is a big part (See John Randle with the Minnesota Vikings or Warren Sapp with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers) but in the 3-4, it's not even close.

A 3-4 DT/NT would be above and beyond a Top 12 QB due to the importance inherit in the actual position. Also if you take the Top 12 QB, you're not guaranteed a Top 5 QB and could wind with the 12th or 11th best QB as opposed to ensuring that you get at least the 3rd best, if not the 1st best DT/NT.

I guess the question then becomes: What is the value of the #3 NT vs. the #12 QB, #3 vs. #11, so on and so forth.

Quick odds work... you have an 33% chance (1 in 3) of landing the #1 DT/NT. You have an 8.3% chance (1 in 12) of landing the #1 QB.

 

[thatguy]

3 in 8 teams (or 37.5% of teams) have a top 12 QB. 3 in 32 teams (or about 9.3%, maybe less if one team has 2) has a top 3 DT. not to mention there are more starting (and backup) DT's than there are QB's in the NFL by a pretty wide margin. I think it's clear it is far more difficult to acquire a top 3 DE than a top 12 QB. now, which is more important to a team's success? i can't say for sure, but i don't think there's an easy answer - i'm sure it is very much based on circumstance and supporting cast. that said, i think the market right now values the top 3 DT higher (by how much, i'm not sure, perhaps not as much as i would think) than the top 12 (at least fringe top 12) QB. so me, personally, i'd take the DT.

 

[loose circuits]

when you have a strong running game, you can hide a QB. If I was the Rams, I'd go with the DT. Win games playing good D and running the ball with SJax. Get your franchise QB next season. Suh could very well be the best DT in the game in 2-3 years. With Carriker and Long along the front lines, they should be able to get some production out of that unit for once.

 

[ADP]

If you want to win championships. You take the QB. Its the most important position on field. If you just want to have a pro-bowl player and a better defense, then you take DT.

A top 12 QB will make your entire offense better from the WRs to the RB.

In the end, the one thing every team in NFL is striving for is to win the Super Bowl. Do you think a pro-bowl top 3 DT is going to do that for you? I don't. Will a top 12 QB do that? There is a good chance. Just look at top 12 QBs now. Half of them have already won a Super Bowl and the other half has either been there and lost or has their respective teams in playoffs 1 or 2 games away.

 

[datonn]

QB.

Without a top signal caller any team will flounder.

A most recent example, look at the Vikings before they got Favre.

Those Williams boys didn't propel them anywhere.

This. It is MUCH easier for opposing offenses and offensive coordinators to work around a stud DT in their game planning than it is for opposing defenses to compensate for and work around one of the top 10-12 QBs in the league. Defenses without a top DT can also "hide" that weakness a lot easier than offenses can "hide" a weakness at QB. As Andy pointed out....case in point? The Minnesota Vikings, circa 2008 and 2009.

 

[ScottyFargo]

You gotta take a QB. Top 1/3rd QB in the league can keep your team alive so long as the rest of it is solid around him. A 4-3 team gets to have 2 DTs; every team only gets 1 QB to start.

 

[CaptainHook]

QB.

Without a top signal caller any team will flounder.

A most recent example, look at the Vikings before they got Favre.

Those Williams boys didn't propel them anywhere.

This. It is MUCH easier for opposing offenses and offensive coordinators to work around a stud DT in their game planning than it is for opposing defenses to compensate for and work around one of the top 10-12 QBs in the league. Defenses without a top DT can also "hide" that weakness a lot easier than offenses can "hide" a weakness at QB. As Andy pointed out....case in point? The Minnesota Vikings, circa 2008 and 2009.

Counterpoint new york jets 2008 and 2009

 

[BassNBrew]

the elite players are the gamechangers. give me elite over above average every time at every position. (assuming i have a coaching staff that can properly utilize this players skills. its easy to negate superior talent with a system that suppresses a potentially elite player's abilities see donovan mcnabb.)

Top 12 QBs are not easy to get. But - I like to win with defense and as a Titans fan I've seen what the loss of an elite DT does. So I'll take Haynesworth back please.Falcons fans might disagree as their franchise QB made a huge difference for them. So maybe it's about equal.

How much did haynesworth help the Skins last year.

 

[BassNBrew]

3 in 8 teams (or 37.5% of teams) have a top 12 QB. 3 in 32 teams (or about 9.3%, maybe less if one team has 2) has a top 3 DT. not to mention there are more starting (and backup) DT's than there are QB's in the NFL by a pretty wide margin. I think it's clear it is far more difficult to acquire a top 3 DE than a top 12 QB. now, which is more important to a team's success? i can't say for sure, but i don't think there's an easy answer - i'm sure it is very much based on circumstance and supporting cast. that said, i think the market right now values the top 3 DT higher (by how much, i'm not sure, perhaps not as much as i would think) than the top 12 (at least fringe top 12) QB. so me, personally, i'd take the DT.

I posted this in another thread about elite pass rushers....2009Sacks1. Elvis Dumervil*+ · DEN 17.0 NO2. Jared Allen*+ · MIN 14.5 YES NFC Championship loss3. Dwight Freeney*+ · IND 13.5 YES Super Bowl lossLaMarr Woodley · PIT 13.5 NO2008Sacks1. DeMarcus Ware*+ · DAL 20.0 NO2. Joey Porter* · MIA 17.5 NO3. John Abraham · ATL 16.5 YES Wildcard loss2007Sacks1. Jared Allen*+ · KAN 15.5 NO2. Patrick Kerney*+ · SEA 14.5 YES Division loss3. DeMarcus Ware*+ · DAL 14.0 YES Division lossMario Williams · HOU 14.0 2006Sacks1. Shawne Merriman*+ · SDG 17.0 YES Division loss2. Aaron Kampman* · GNB 15.5 NO3. Aaron Schobel* · BUF 14.0 NO2005Sacks1. Derrick Burgess* · OAK 16.0 NO2. Osi Umenyiora*+ · NYG 14.5 NO3. Simeon Rice · TAM 14.0 YES Wildcard lossJust posted the top three sack leaders for the last 5 years. Note that Peppers hasn't cracked that list once.Also 8 of 15 yearly sacks leaders haven't made the playoffs. 2 of the 7 that did lost in the wildcard round. Only one of the 15 made the Super Bowl only to loss. Both of those guys were second in the league in sacks that year. I post this just to make the point that having the stud pass rusher doesn't equate to team success.Looking at INT and Fumble Recoveries2009Interceptions1. Jairus Byrd* · BUF 9 NOAsante Samuel* · PHI 9 YES Wildcard lossDarren Sharper* · NOR 9 YES Super Bowl ChampCharles Woodson*+ · GNB 9 YES Wildcard loss2008Interceptions1. Ed Reed*+ · BAL 9 YES AFC Championship loss2. Nick Collins* · GNB 7 NOMichael Griffin · TEN 7 YES Division lossTroy Polamalu*+ · PIT 7 YES Super Bowl ChampCharles Woodson* · GNB 7 NO2007Interceptions1. Antonio Cromartie*+ · SDG 10 YES AFC Championship loss2. O.J. Atogwe · STL 8 NO3. Ed Reed*+ · BAL 7 NOMarcus Trufant* · SEA 7 YES Division loss2006Interceptions1. Champ Bailey*+ · DEN 10 NOAsante Samuel · NWE 10 YES AFC Championship loss3. A boatload tied at 8 NO 2005Interceptions1. Ty Law* · NYJ 10 NODeltha O'Neal*+ · CIN 10 NO 3. Darren Sharper* · MIN 9 NO9 of 19 INT leaders have made the playoffs, a higher rate than sack leaders. Of those nine, two of their teams have won the Super Bowl and only two have lost in the Wildcard round. 5 of those nine have appeared in a conference championship game.Hmmm....maybe big money should be spent on big play defensive backs instead of pass rushers?

 

[Donnybrook]

QB.Without a top signal caller any team will flounder.A most recent example, look at the Vikings before they got Favre.Those Williams boys didn't propel them anywhere.

anywhere = 10-6 and losing in the 1st round of the playoffs. I guess the Cowboys last year didn't go anywhere either.

 

[Andy Herron]

QB.Without a top signal caller any team will flounder.A most recent example, look at the Vikings before they got Favre.Those Williams boys didn't propel them anywhere.

anywhere = 10-6 and losing in the 1st round of the playoffs. I guess the Cowboys last year didn't go anywhere either.

It certainly wasn't because they didn't have a QB (Romo) or a NT (Ratliff).If your Vikings had had a QB, maybe Minnesota would know what a Lombardi Trophy looks and feels like.

 

[datonn]

If your Vikings had had a QB, maybe Minnesota would know what a Lombardi Trophy looks and feels like.

Sounds like somebody is still a little upset about his team's opponent taking a victory lap around Metrodome and running up the score against the 'boys in January... Of course, it would have been even sweeter if ADP hadn't played hot-potato with the football in a VERY winnable game against the Saints the following week, but what's done is done.

 

[Andy Herron]

If your Vikings had had a QB, maybe Minnesota would know what a Lombardi Trophy looks and feels like.

Sounds like somebody is still a little upset about his team's opponent taking a victory lap around Metrodome and running up the score against the 'boys in January... Of course, it would have been even sweeter if ADP hadn't played hot-potato with the football in a VERY winnable game against the Saints the following week, but what's done is done.

Not at all. Somebody tossed a rotten tomato and I thought I'd just toss one back.

 

[coolnerd]

While a great DT can bring stabilty to your defense, and be a constant disruption to opposing offenses, a stable QB situation is more likely to lead to organizational stabilty. Coaches and GMS where the QB position is set stay in place longer allowing a team to keep offensvie and defensive systems together. Many of the questionable trades and draft pick decisions are made because the teams that don't have that at least Eli Manning level QB are trying to find that guy. I mean for all the junk people the Raiders about Russell, they were not the only one who would have taken him first in the draft. Seatle is literally rolling the dice on a guy who has never thrown a pass in a real NFL game. With solid QB in place, an NFL teams gives itself a chance more years than not.

 

[FUBAR]

the elite players are the gamechangers. give me elite over above average every time at every position. (assuming i have a coaching staff that can properly utilize this players skills. its easy to negate superior talent with a system that suppresses a potentially elite player's abilities see donovan mcnabb.)

Top 12 QBs are not easy to get. But - I like to win with defense and as a Titans fan I've seen what the loss of an elite DT does. So I'll take Haynesworth back please.Falcons fans might disagree as their franchise QB made a huge difference for them. So maybe it's about equal.

How much did haynesworth help the Skins last year.

I'm assuming the rest of my players are competent and my coach is average or better. The Skins were pretty abysmal last year overall.

 

[ScottyFargo]

the elite players are the gamechangers. give me elite over above average every time at every position. (assuming i have a coaching staff that can properly utilize this players skills. its easy to negate superior talent with a system that suppresses a potentially elite player's abilities see donovan mcnabb.)

Top 12 QBs are not easy to get. But - I like to win with defense and as a Titans fan I've seen what the loss of an elite DT does. So I'll take Haynesworth back please.Falcons fans might disagree as their franchise QB made a huge difference for them. So maybe it's about equal.

How much did haynesworth help the Skins last year.

I'm assuming the rest of my players are competent and my coach is average or better. The Skins were pretty abysmal last year overall.

His point stands though. If you have a bad team, a top 12 QB will serve you better than a top 3 DT.

 

[Jous]

You take the QB, no question. QB's can carry teams and turn around franchises with not as much help as many seem to think if they're of the quality of the 12 listed, especially in this modern pass-happy era. DT's cannot carry teams.

 

[QuizGuy66]

I just think of Palmer and I think of Big Daddy and that pretty much guarantees me in the QB camp.

But let's be a little more scientific...

2009

Sacks

1. Elvis Dumervil PICK 126

2. Jared Allen oddly enough also PICK 126

3. Dwight Freeney PICK 11

LaMarr Woodley PICK 46

2008

Sacks

1. DeMarcus Ware PICK 11

2. Joey Porter PICK 73

3. John Abraham PICK 13

2007

Sacks

1. Jared Allen PICK 126

2. Patrick Kerney PICK 30

3. DeMarcus Ware PICK 11

Mario Williams PICK 1

2006

Sacks

1. Shawne Merriman PICK 12

2. Aaron Kampman PICK 156

3. Aaron Schobel PICK 46

2005

Sacks

1. Derrick Burgess PICK 63

2. Osi Umenyiora PICK 56

3. Simeon Rice PICK 3

---------------------------------------

For QBs, after a bit of self debate. I've decided that playoffs is what matters. Here's where the 12 playoff QBs for each of the last 5 years were picked:

2009

Brady - PICK 199

Sanchez - PICK 5

Palmer - PICK 1

Flacco - PICK 18

P Manning - PICK 1

Rivers - PICK 4

Romo - UNDRAFTED

McNabb - PICK 2

Favre - PICK 33

Rodgers - PICK 24

Brees - PICK 32

Warner - UNDRAFTED

2008

Warner - UNDRAFTED

Ryan - PICK 3

P Manning - PICK 1

Rivers - PICK 4

McNabb - PICK 2

T Jackson - PICK 64

Flacco - PICK 18

Pennington - PICK 18

Delhomme - UNDRAFTED

K Collins - PICK 5

Roethlisberger - PICK 11

E Manning - PICK 1

2007

Garrard - PICK 108

Roethlisberger - PICK 11

T Collins - PICK 45

M Hasselbeck - PICK 184

Rivers - PICK 4

V Young - PICK 3

Brady - PICK 199

Favre - PICK 33

Romo - UNDRAFTED

P Manning - PICK 1

E Manning - PICK 1

Garcia - UNDRAFTED

2006

Romo - UNDRAFTED

M Hasselbeck - PICK 184

P Manning - PICK 1

T Green - PICK 222

Garcia - UNDRAFTED

E Manning - PICK 1

Brady - PICK 199

Pennington - PICK 18

Brees - PICK 32

McNair - PICK 3

Grossman - PICK 22

Rivers - PICK 4

2005

Brunell - PICK 118

C Simms - PICK 97

Brady - PICK 199

Leftwich - PICK 7

Delhomme - UNDRAFTED

E Manning - PICK 1

Roethlisberger - PICK 11

Palmer - PICK 1

Plummer - PICK 42

M Hasselbeck - PICK 184

Grossman - PICK 22

P Manning - PICK 1

--------------------------------

Okay so 4 of the 17 guys that were in the top-3 in sacks in the last 5 years were a top-12 pick. 3 more were in the top 50. 10 were picked after #50. None were undrafted.

Of the 60 playoff QBs in the last 5 years:

11 of the slots were a #1 overall pick (P Manning, E Manning, Palmer)

Another 11 were picked #2 through #5 (Sanchez, Rivers, McNabb, Ryan, K Collins, V Young, McNair)

Another 17 were picked from #6 through #50 (Flacco, Pennington, Roethlisberger, Favre, Rodgers, Brees, T Collins, Grossman, Leftwich, Plummer)

12 were picked after #50. (Brady, Tavaris, Garrard, Hasselbeck, T Green, Brunell, C Simms)

9 were undrafted. (Warner, Delhomme, Romo, Garcia)

Ultimately, I think this tips the scale more toward getting the Top-12 QB.

-QG

 

[puckalicious]

the elite players are the gamechangers. give me elite over above average every time at every position. (assuming i have a coaching staff that can properly utilize this players skills. its easy to negate superior talent with a system that suppresses a potentially elite player's abilities see donovan mcnabb.)

Top 12 QBs are not easy to get. But - I like to win with defense and as a Titans fan I've seen what the loss of an elite DT does. So I'll take Haynesworth back please.Falcons fans might disagree as their franchise QB made a huge difference for them. So maybe it's about equal.

How much did haynesworth help the Skins last year.

You take the QB, no question. QB's can carry teams and turn around franchises with not as much help as many seem to think if they're of the quality of the 12 listed, especially in this modern pass-happy era. DT's cannot carry teams.

How much did drafting the top QB help Detroit last year? Maybe not a fair comparison. My answer is different based on what I see as 2 possible scenarios for the question at hand. If the team is average at all positions and just has a hole at QB & DT, then I take the QB. If the team has holes everywhere (Like the Lions) then I take the DT. You build a team from the trenches.

 

[FUBAR]

the elite players are the gamechangers. give me elite over above average every time at every position. (assuming i have a coaching staff that can properly utilize this players skills. its easy to negate superior talent with a system that suppresses a potentially elite player's abilities see donovan mcnabb.)

Top 12 QBs are not easy to get. But - I like to win with defense and as a Titans fan I've seen what the loss of an elite DT does. So I'll take Haynesworth back please.

Falcons fans might disagree as their franchise QB made a huge difference for them. So maybe it's about equal.

How much did haynesworth help the Skins last year.

You take the QB, no question. QB's can carry teams and turn around franchises with not as much help as many seem to think if they're of the quality of the 12 listed, especially in this modern pass-happy era. DT's cannot carry teams.

How much did drafting the top QB help Detroit last year? Maybe not a fair comparison. My answer is different based on what I see as 2 possible scenarios for the question at hand. If the team is average at all positions and just has a hole at QB & DT, then I take the QB. If the team has holes everywhere (Like the Lions) then I take the DT. You build a team from the trenches.

of course most of us are looking at stats when listing our top 12 QBs, the QBs that have top 12 stats are usually on better teams. Jay Cutler is a top 12 QB and was traded last year. His gaining team lost 2 more games, the team that lost him had the exact same record as with him.

Haynesworth is a top 3 DT and was signed away last year. His gaining team lost 4 more games with him while the team that lost him lost 5 more games.

 

[bmsarvis]

DT. If I have nothing at either position my teams sucks. I can't afford to miss. Less likely to miss on the DT than the QB. Plus, if my team sucks, my D is gonna play more than my O anyway. Journey Qb's can manage games.

 

[BassNBrew]

the elite players are the gamechangers. give me elite over above average every time at every position. (assuming i have a coaching staff that can properly utilize this players skills. its easy to negate superior talent with a system that suppresses a potentially elite player's abilities see donovan mcnabb.)

Top 12 QBs are not easy to get. But - I like to win with defense and as a Titans fan I've seen what the loss of an elite DT does. So I'll take Haynesworth back please.Falcons fans might disagree as their franchise QB made a huge difference for them. So maybe it's about equal.

How much did haynesworth help the Skins last year.

You take the QB, no question. QB's can carry teams and turn around franchises with not as much help as many seem to think if they're of the quality of the 12 listed, especially in this modern pass-happy era. DT's cannot carry teams.

How much did drafting the top QB help Detroit last year? Maybe not a fair comparison. My answer is different based on what I see as 2 possible scenarios for the question at hand. If the team is average at all positions and just has a hole at QB & DT, then I take the QB. If the team has holes everywhere (Like the Lions) then I take the DT. You build a team from the trenches.

Your QB last year wasn't a top 12 QB. If he does attain that staus, I would take Stafford + below average stating DT over Hansworth + a below average QB.

 

[BassNBrew]

DT. If I have nothing at either position my teams sucks. I can't afford to miss. Less likely to miss on the DT than the QB. Plus, if my team sucks, my D is gonna play more than my O anyway. Journey Qb's can manage games.

Right...they've been managing you to perfect seasons and records for road futility.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Btw, realistically how many DTs have been top 3 (or heck even top 12) for an entire decade? How realistic is that. Thought of that given the revolving door in the sack lead over the years.

-QG

 

[Chase Stuart]

If we're assuming top 12 QB means QB 10-12, then DT easy. If we just mean a random Qb in the top 12 (equally likely to get the #1 QB or the #12 QB), that's a different story. But if you have the 10th best QB, you don't have any shot at getting a top 3 QB. If you have a stud DT, you can still find a star QB later. If QB is the most important position on the field, and the goal is to have the best team in the league, then you really need to do everything you can to get the best QB int he league. Not the 12th best.

But top 3 DT is a no brainer, even if you don't think a QB is that much more important than a DT. Warren Sapp, Joe Greene, Alan Page, Bob Lily, Randy White, Buck Buchanan won a ton of conference championships/super bowls leading great defensive units. Sam Adams and Tony Siragusa played at an elite level in 2000, and that's why the Ravens won the Super Bowl. An elite DT makes the whole defense a lot better; the 12th best QB makes the whole offense a little bit better.

 

[Bob Magaw]

* clarification of intent of this thread below... (which i posted on another board)

in an earlier thread, the question was asked whether a top 12 QB is worth a top 3 DT...

the thread was foundering over the fact that i had initially neglected to account for how we would agree on what top 12 QB is?

after looking at it more closely, it seemed arbitrary to go with QB rating, passing yards, completion %, TDs?

wins wouldn't work... how to isolate what was QB, & what other offense & defensive players?

the best way to me, seems to be to go with a "consensus" top 12 list, and see if similar names pop up AROUND the 12 slot...

several people in the thread said, seemingly without hesitation, top 3 DT...

to me, this response would make more sense in the context of having a *generally* agreed definition of what exactly constitutes a top 12 QB...

maybe top 12 goes unnecessarily deep...

i originally of course was trying to wrap my head around the concept of relative positional value of players like bradford & suh...

obviously, it might be of interest to see if a not quite as highly graded bradford, could be more valuable than the consensus #1 suh...

i didn't want to assume bradford would be top 5... and i wanted to make them far apart on purpose, because suh IS highly graded (though so was dorsey)... thus the 3 & 12...

i will leave the DT as top 3 for comparison purposes (more focused on the QB question in this thread, at this time)...

i now think it would be better to try and find a consensus top 10 QB list... not much difference between top 10 and top 12... and it still leaves a wide gap between top 3 at DT... to hopefully account for a perceived gap from the anti-bradford/pro-suh camp?

with a top 10 list, there will be fewer names, and it will be easier to come up with a consensus at the #10 spot (or a few players around that spot - call the aim a top 10-12, AFTER compiling the individual top 10 QB lists)...

in making your QB list... look at all the QBs from last year...

eliminate age by assuming you had hindsight and knew everything about each players career so far (more about favre, less about rodgers)... and you had a time machine, could make them all rookies again...

you are a GM... how would you order them if you were going to build a franchise...

my list would look something like this...

1 - favre

2 - brady

3 - manning

4 - warner

5 - brees

6 - roethlisberger

7 - palmer

8 - mcnabb

9 - rodgers

10- romo

* just missed...

phillip rivers

eli manning

some may disagree with my ranking, which is the point of generating different ones...

what is more important than the names in top 3-5 (who i think should be an easier consensus), is if some of the same names pop up and cluster around the 8-10, 10-12 range (after collating the lists)...

than we can get a better handle on what exactly a top 10-12 QB means, in order to compare relative value with top 3 DT...

BTW, since this seemed to lead to some confusion in the other thread (and taking pains to avoid residual or spillover confusion from that thread)...

if we say a top 10 QB = romo...

i'm not suggesting that romo will than finish... 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, etc for every season the rest of his career... some season he may well finsih better, like top 3-5 or whatever.

* two interesting/unusual (to me) ideas in that thread that i found contrarian, highly unorthodox (iconoclastic? )... feel free to weigh in separately on these...

1 - rodgers is too unproven to have a place in the top TWELVE (let alone top 10)

2 - pennington belongs ahead of the likes of rodgers and rivers (this may have been spurious due to confusion over whether this was a best of past decade list?)

** we can at least point to what the DT question might eventually look like at this stage...

something like...

if the rams were forced to use the #1 pick this year on either a QB from above list (consensus 10-12) OR a top 3 DT (haynesworth, kevin williams, kris jenkins?)... from the outer bound of those respective ranges...

AND you could have the designated QB or DT (as the case may be) 21 & healthy...

is it so obvious it would be a no brainer, slam dunk DT pick?

even though the QB may not be as highly graded?

and if not, does it point to the fact that there may be a more pronounced difference in the relative value between the QB and DT positions than may be currently accounted for by some?

 

[Bob Magaw]

excutive summary of the above... from same source... BTW, when i did this (i think i did mix people up, not looking to draw from best of decade lists... go with last years active QBs, order them, but assuming you had hindsight of their respective careers, they could magically be 21 & healthy again, and you could build a franchise around them... use same instructions for DT)... for me, the choice was something like, if you had nothing else, and were starting a franchise... would you rather have (insert your 10th best QB by these criteria - romo, rivers, e. manning?)... would you rather have that QB or the 3rd best DT (haynesworth, kevin williams, kris jenkins?)... maybe many will still say DT, i just don't see it as obvious... even if it is easier to find an eli manning than a kevin williams (but is this so?), does a top 10-12 QB have more impact than a top 3 DT? not sure if said before, so assume you have nobody else on your roster...

was not trying to draw conclusions about pedigree of actual draft position at this point...

it was to arrive at a consensus top 10 list of...

1 - QBs you would draft to build a franchise around...

2 - based on last years active QBs...

3 - presupposing you had hindsight (knew everything relevant historically/statistically about their career)

4 - your pick would be 21 & healthy again (favre would be 21 again, palmer wouldn't have a knee injury, etc)

* LATER, if we have a consensus, we can plug in that data, to see if the #10-12 QB would be "more valuable" than a top 3 DT (using same rules/instructions as above)

in the prior thread some summarily dismissed the QB... but i assume this was done in the abstract, without an actual, more concrete example/instance of what QB they would be, in effect, saying no too...

the end goal, of course, is to shed light on the bradford/suh debate...

 

[gandalas]

Btw, realistically how many DTs have been top 3 (or heck even top 12) for an entire decade? How realistic is that. Thought of that given the revolving door in the sack lead over the years.-QG

The problem is, DTs do not usually have a set category that defines their impact on games. Sacks usually do not come from DTs (DEs or OLBs), Huge tackle numbers do not come from DTs (LBs or Safeties in some schemes). They just do not have a quantifiable individual stat in most cases. Warren Sapp is the only recent example I can think of that was consistently in the mix for the sack lead, and even he may have only been top-3 for a year or 2 (too lazy to look it up).DTs generally work within a defense, and need other quality players on the same side of the ball to have an impact. Qbs do as well, but can have more of a direct impact upon a game than a DT, for the most part.

 

[Bob Magaw]

If we're assuming top 12 QB means QB 10-12, then DT easy. If we just mean a random Qb in the top 12 (equally likely to get the #1 QB or the #12 QB), that's a different story. But if you have the 10th best QB, you don't have any shot at getting a top 3 QB. If you have a stud DT, you can still find a star QB later. If QB is the most important position on the field, and the goal is to have the best team in the league, then you really need to do everything you can to get the best QB int he league. Not the 12th best.But top 3 DT is a no brainer, even if you don't think a QB is that much more important than a DT. Warren Sapp, Joe Greene, Alan Page, Bob Lily, Randy White, Buck Buchanan won a ton of conference championships/super bowls leading great defensive units. Sam Adams and Tony Siragusa played at an elite level in 2000, and that's why the Ravens won the Super Bowl. An elite DT makes the whole defense a lot better; the 12th best QB makes the whole offense a little bit better.

i would also clarify the intent of the question... assume you are starting a franchise from scratch...teams like PIT, TB, BAL had some great overall defenses to use your examples... no doubt greene was integral... but PIT also had dwight white and LC greenwood, jack lambert, jack ham, mel blount, etc... TB had simeon rice when they won super bowl, derrick brooks (probably best WLB of his era), ronde barber and john lynch were outstanding at their positions... BAL had ray lewis (best MLB of his era), ed reed, 1st round CB (?)... maybe adams would be an example of a top 3 DT at that time, i forget if was then... was siragusa at that time? they were great in tandem, not sure how they would rank individually...what if these teams had plugged in top 5-6 DTs, and used the pick instead on a QB (PIT had bradshaw, of course, and didn't need a QB)... if BAL had a better QB than dilfer in super bowl year, would they have been more dominant... would they not have had to go through the rebuild in the wake of that?i'm not sure we can't think of counter-examples where teams had really good DTs, and didn't do great...cortez kennedy was great, but never really sniffed a super bowl... than they had some average DTs, and went to super bowl later when they had the good, but not great hasselbeck?rams had the fearsome foursome with HoFer merlin olsen & rosey grier... but languished for years... usually great DTs are hard to get, but jets got jenkins fairly easily... if i could get both of them at 21, not sure i would rather have jenkins than sanchez? sanchez stabilizes the franchise for next decade. are their counterexamples of teams that had average DTs and were successful with a good, not great QB...

 

[puckalicious]

How much did drafting the top QB help Detroit last year? Maybe not a fair comparison. My answer is different based on what I see as 2 possible scenarios for the question at hand. If the team is average at all positions and just has a hole at QB & DT, then I take the QB. If the team has holes everywhere (Like the Lions) then I take the DT. You build a team from the trenches.

Your QB last year wasn't a top 12 QB. If he does attain that staus, I would take Stafford + below average stating DT over Hansworth + a below average QB.

Peyton Manning wouldn't have been a top 12 QB on that team last year. My point is that on a team as dreadful as the Lions have been, adding a top-12 QB will not get you very much and it's better to solidify the defense. However on a team with only a hole at QB and DT, adding a top-12 QB would probably make a bigger difference than a top-3 DT in terms of W-L.

 

[Jous]

You take the QB, no question. QB's can carry teams and turn around franchises with not as much help as many seem to think if they're of the quality of the 12 listed, especially in this modern pass-happy era. DT's cannot carry teams.

How much did drafting the top QB help Detroit last year? Maybe not a fair comparison. My answer is different based on what I see as 2 possible scenarios for the question at hand. If the team is average at all positions and just has a hole at QB & DT, then I take the QB. If the team has holes everywhere (Like the Lions) then I take the DT. You build a team from the trenches.

I don't really know if Stafford failing to impact the Lions last year is the best example, mostly because I highly doubt he'll ever be good enough be a top 12 anyway. I do think someone like Peyton Manning plugged into that team would still be able to get them 8 wins.

 

[Pope Benedict XVI Fan]

How about if you try to make this a real world example.

1995 NFL draft, you have the number one pick and are told you can pick one of only two players. Warren Sapp or Steve McNair?

I feel these two are pretty close to the description in the OP. Sapp was definitely one of the very best DTs for a long time and for a couple of seasons around the turn of the millennium I think most would say he was the best DT in the league. Sapp went to seven Pro Bowls, was an All-Pro six times (4 first team, 2 second team) and was Defensive Player of the Year in 1999.

Steve McNair was a very good QB but wasn't really a great one, he went to three Pro Bowls in his career and had one standout season where he was a co-MVP. I guess there was only one or maybe two seasons when people would say he was a top-3 QB in the league, but he was almost always mentioned when you talked about top-10s/top-12s.

Sapp will be going to the Hall of Fame in a few years but McNair, though he will probably have a small number of advocates, doesn't have much chance of getting in at all. But I reckon most people would rather their team drafted Steve McNair in 1995 than Warren Sapp (okay, maybe not Bucs fans, but this is a hypothetical).

 

[coolnerd]

You take the QB, no question. QB's can carry teams and turn around franchises with not as much help as many seem to think if they're of the quality of the 12 listed, especially in this modern pass-happy era. DT's cannot carry teams.

How much did drafting the top QB help Detroit last year? Maybe not a fair comparison. My answer is different based on what I see as 2 possible scenarios for the question at hand. If the team is average at all positions and just has a hole at QB & DT, then I take the QB. If the team has holes everywhere (Like the Lions) then I take the DT. You build a team from the trenches.

I don't really know if Stafford failing to impact the Lions last year is the best example, mostly because I highly doubt he'll ever be good enough be a top 12 anyway. I do think someone like Peyton Manning plugged into that team would still be able to get them 8 wins.

The question Magaw asked was a ten year question not a one year one. Essentailly, he is asking would you be better off if a team had Donovan McNabb or Kevin Williams ( I know he has not been in the league as long). With all of his well documented flaws, Mc Nabb has given the Eagles a chance more years than not and the Vikings especially against the run, have been stout most years. For a crystal ball, either option is well above average, although I will take the what 5 NFC title games from McNabb over the long-term very good defense where I am still trying to figure out my QB with Williams. I will repeat both are darn good options that most teams would rather have than not. Just as an aside: I think the problem with this hypothetical is that fooball has so many moving parts (53 active, 8 practice, 8-10 on IR most years) that no matter how positive influence one player has one the rest of a team, you will need the other elements to not only be successful, but also to getting the most out of either player (top 12 QB) or (top 3 DT).

 

[coolnerd]

How about if you try to make this a real world example.1995 NFL draft, you have the number one pick and are told you can pick one of only two players. Warren Sapp or Steve McNair? I feel these two are pretty close to the description in the OP. Sapp was definitely one of the very best DTs for a long time and for a couple of seasons around the turn of the millennium I think most would say he was the best DT in the league. Sapp went to seven Pro Bowls, was an All-Pro six times (4 first team, 2 second team) and was Defensive Player of the Year in 1999.Steve McNair was a very good QB but wasn't really a great one, he went to three Pro Bowls in his career and had one standout season where he was a co-MVP. I guess there was only one or maybe two seasons when people would say he was a top-3 QB in the league, but he was almost always mentioned when you talked about top-10s/top-12s. Sapp will be going to the Hall of Fame in a few years but McNair, though he will probably have a small number of advocates, doesn't have much chance of getting in at all. But I reckon most people would rather their team drafted Steve McNair in 1995 than Warren Sapp (okay, maybe not Bucs fans, but this is a hypothetical).

You typed this as I was typing my other answer, but you get it. Most years with a healthy McNair, the Titans gave themselves a chance to compete, but at the same time the Bucs were a top defense more years than not. Both made the Superbowl once, with Sapp's team winning and McNair coming up short against one of the great offenses of our era. Honestly, I think most organizations would giddy if they knew for sure on either side of the coin with those two players.

 

[puckalicious]

You take the QB, no question. QB's can carry teams and turn around franchises with not as much help as many seem to think if they're of the quality of the 12 listed, especially in this modern pass-happy era. DT's cannot carry teams.

How much did drafting the top QB help Detroit last year? Maybe not a fair comparison. My answer is different based on what I see as 2 possible scenarios for the question at hand. If the team is average at all positions and just has a hole at QB & DT, then I take the QB. If the team has holes everywhere (Like the Lions) then I take the DT. You build a team from the trenches.

I don't really know if Stafford failing to impact the Lions last year is the best example, mostly because I highly doubt he'll ever be good enough be a top 12 anyway. I do think someone like Peyton Manning plugged into that team would still be able to get them 8 wins.

This is actually pretty interesting. How many teams in the NFL have had a winning record with a bottom 3 defense and an average offense? How many with an average defense and a bottom 3 offense? I'm not sure how to do this without spending way too much time on it.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

QB.

Without a top signal caller any team will flounder.

A most recent example, look at the Vikings before they got Favre.

Those Williams boys didn't propel them anywhere.

This. It is MUCH easier for opposing offenses and offensive coordinators to work around a stud DT in their game planning than it is for opposing defenses to compensate for and work around one of the top 10-12 QBs in the league. Defenses without a top DT can also "hide" that weakness a lot easier than offenses can "hide" a weakness at QB. As Andy pointed out....case in point? The Minnesota Vikings, circa 2008 and 2009.

It seems strange to use the Vikings as an illustration as to why the QB is the choice, when they seem to be a perfect example of the opposite conclusion. They drafted Kevin Williams, but added Favre as a free agent. It is near unheard of to add a top 3 DT through free agency. A "franchise" QB is very rare and valuable, but capable starting QB's (top 12 or so) are available almost every year through trades or free agency.

 

[Chase Stuart]

QB.

Without a top signal caller any team will flounder.

A most recent example, look at the Vikings before they got Favre.

Those Williams boys didn't propel them anywhere.

This. It is MUCH easier for opposing offenses and offensive coordinators to work around a stud DT in their game planning than it is for opposing defenses to compensate for and work around one of the top 10-12 QBs in the league. Defenses without a top DT can also "hide" that weakness a lot easier than offenses can "hide" a weakness at QB. As Andy pointed out....case in point? The Minnesota Vikings, circa 2008 and 2009.

It seems strange to use the Vikings as an illustration as to why the QB is the choice, when they seem to be a perfect example of the opposite conclusion. They drafted Kevin Williams, but added Favre as a free agent. It is near unheard of to add a top 3 DT through free agency. A "franchise" QB is very rare and valuable, but capable starting QB's (top 12 or so) are available almost every year through trades or free agency.

Not sure I agree with this. I suppose McNabb is available right now in the trade market, but the free agent market for QBs is usually really ugly. Manning, Brady, Rivers, Ben, Brees -- those guys are never going to hit the FA market. Matt Ryan, Flacco, Romo, Rodgers, etc., are pretty much going to stay with their team, too. Only exception is if a guy is injured and has only flashed ability (like Brees in SD), which is obviously the rare case. The Saints got super lucky with Brees, but guess what? No one else will ever get lucky with him again, because he's going to be a Saint until he's too old to be elite. Meanwhile, Albert Haynesworth was a FA last year. The Jets were able to get Kris Jenkins for pretty cheap. And the Pats almost let Vince Wilfork go.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Is there an easily gettable list of the starting QBs in the last, say 20 Super Bowls, with the starting DTs for each team?

-QG

 

[Chase Stuart]

Is there an easily gettable list of the starting QBs in the last, say 20 Super Bowls, with the starting DTs for each team?-QG

If no one else does, I can pull this up today or tomorrow.