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.

If you were an NFL GM... (1 Viewer)

well

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

LHUCKS

Footballguy
I don't get why anybody would draft a player that takes a year to develop and after that "development" may or may not pan out.

I'll trade for Schaub, thank you very much.

 
So, if Pittsburgh had the #10 pick in 2004 instead of the #11 pick, they should have passed on Big Ben?

 
I would, but not only if a good value.

Ben as #10 - :thumbup:

Eli as #1 (minus the trade) - probably

Alex Smith as #1 - :X

 
It takes any position a year or two to get to where they can be a steady contributor for the most part. Not just qb's. QB's have to learn more than the other positions. There are a few rare occassions where a rookie can jump in and put up stellar numbers (Moss, Merriman, Anderson). But I think we'd all agree that Moss and Merriman are freaks of nature and Mike Anderson was in a great system. One of those top 10 qb's may take a couple years before it all clicks, but how many players have never had the light turn on? I'd love to have a Manning (Peyton), Culpepper, McNabb type of guy. The risk is worth the reward.

 
So, if Pittsburgh had the #10 pick in 2004 instead of the #11 pick, they should have passed on Big Ben?
For every Big Ben, there are three Tim Couches...at least it seems that way.
 
Why draft Peyton Manning when you can hinge your hopes on the Gio Carmazzi's of the NFL?
Why draft Peyton Manning when you can trade with Atlanta for Brett Favre? :ph34r:
 
Yeah, if I had the #8 pick, and a QB who could run like Vick and throw like Manning were still on the board.. I'd totally pass him up there too.

Voted "yes" without hesitation.

 
I think it probably depends on the quality of the QB class that particular year. Imagine having a shot at a QB as a GM in a famed class like '83 or '99. I think QBs like Carson Palmer and Roethlisberger are also showing that you don't necessarily have to wait 3-5 years for your QB to absorb your whole system in order to make them contributors. You can tailor the system to fit the QB and get them in their quicker.

 
So, if Pittsburgh had the #10 pick in 2004 instead of the #11 pick, they should have passed on Big Ben?
For every Big Ben, there are three Tim Couches...at least it seems that way.
:goodposting: Even when you get a guy like P. Manning, it seems you have to pay them so much that you end up with a million holes elsewhere on the team. Give me some Dilfer!

 
I don't get why anybody would draft a player that takes a year to develop and after that "development" may or may not pan out.
That satement could apply to any player taken in any round.
 
I don't get why anybody would draft a player that takes a year to develop and after that "development" may or may not pan out.
That satement could apply to any player taken in any round.
There's the solution.Trade all your picks for players, every year.

 
I don't get why anybody would draft a player that takes a year to develop and after that "development" may or may not pan out.
That satement could apply to any player taken in any round.
No it doesn't.QBs almost always take one or two years to develop. Whereas other positions are more likely to come in and make an immediate impact.

 
I don't get why anybody would draft a player that takes a year to develop and after that "development" may or may not pan out.
That satement could apply to any player taken in any round.
No it doesn't.QBs almost always take one or two years to develop. Whereas other positions are more likely to come in and make an immediate impact.
the nfl is full of rookie WR's that are tearing it up. YUP!I know what you mean by saying you would rather let some other team develop a QB instead of taking the risk yourself, I just think you will sell yourself short by doing that.

 
I don't get why anybody would draft a player that takes a year to develop and after that "development" may or may not pan out.

I'll trade for Schaub, thank you very much.
Go back and look at some past drafts...start somewhere where the player's entire careers can be taken into account (like maybe 1990) and start looking at the tops of the drafts...it's not just the QB spot. Drafting is an inexact science at all positions...was Blair Thomas a better pick at #2 than Jeff George at #1 in 1990? Was Tony Mandarich a better pick at #2 than Troy Aikman at #1 in 1989 (granted picks 3,4 and 5 were Barry, Derrick Thomas, and Deion)? In 1988 no QB was taken until round 3 (Chris Chandler). I'm not saying Chandler was great but would you rather have him...or Aundray Bruce (who went #1)...
 
I don't get why anybody would draft a player that takes a year to develop and after that "development" may or may not pan out.
That satement could apply to any player taken in any round.
:goodposting: Why do we keep having this discussion?

For every Tim Couch there is a Kijana Carter or a Leonard Davis or a David Terrell. All positions have early 1st round busts. No position is "safe" to draft, period.

I have posted in several of these threads and when I looked back, even in recent history, you would have done just as well (better IMHO) taking a QB at the top of the draft than taking a supposedly safe position like OL. Even RBs were littered with studs and busts.

One thing about QBs early in the first round is that when you hit, you usually hit it big and the team itself does very, very well. Since 1998 we have Peyton Manning, Roethlisberger, Palmer, Vick, McNabb, Culpepper, and heck even Eli Manning went to the playoffs in year 2. Jacksonville went from 7-9, 6-10, and 6-10 to 5-11, 9-7 and 12-4 in Leftwich's 3 years. If Rivers plays well in San Diego, then that could be another hit.

 
I don't get why anybody would draft a player that takes a year to develop and after that "development" may or may not pan out.
That satement could apply to any player taken in any round.
No it doesn't.QBs almost always take one or two years to develop. Whereas other positions are more likely to come in and make an immediate impact.
Define "immediate impact". Do you mean positively or negatively? I can think of countless linemen, wide receivers, running backs, cornerbacks, d-linemen, linebackers, etc. that were high draft picks that were busts. In their case, sure they had an immediate impact...they immediately sucked and wound up being cut. However, you can count on one hand probably the number of trades that resulted in a team picking up someone's backup qb and them turning into a stud.
 
So, if Pittsburgh had the #10 pick in 2004 instead of the #11 pick, they should have passed on Big Ben?
For every Big Ben, there are three Tim Couches...at least it seems that way.
:goodposting: Even when you get a guy like P. Manning, it seems you have to pay them so much that you end up with a million holes elsewhere on the team. Give me some Dilfer!
:confused: Did Cedric Benson, Ronnie Brown and Braylon Edwards get the rookie minimum last year? Reggie Bush is gonna get at least as much as Alex Smith did last year. Not that Alex Smith has deserved it, but all top 1st round picks get paid quite a bit. They usually get contracts pretty close to what the top players at that position are making.

 
Even when you get a guy like P. Manning, it seems you have to pay them so much that you end up with a million holes elsewhere on the team. Give me some Dilfer!
:shrug: Give me a Rudi Johnson, Thomas Jones, Priest Holmes, etc.

BTW - :lmao: at using Dilfer as an example for your argument, where do you think he was drafted?

 
Even when you get a guy like P. Manning, it seems you have to pay them so much that you end up with a million holes elsewhere on the team.  Give me some Dilfer!
:shrug: Give me a Rudi Johnson, Thomas Jones, Priest Holmes, etc.

BTW - :lmao: at using Dilfer as an example for your argument, where do you think he was drafted?
:lmao: :lmao: :goodposting: :banned:
 
So, if Pittsburgh had the #10 pick in 2004 instead of the #11 pick, they should have passed on Big Ben?
For every Big Ben, there are three Tim Couches...at least it seems that way.
2006 SB Winner - Big Ben
2005 SB Winner - Tom Brady
2004 SB Winner - Tom Brady
2003 SB Winner - Brad Johnson
2002 SB Winner - Tom Brady
2001 SB Winner - Trent Dilfer (6th overall, 1994)
2000 SB Winner - Kurt Warner
1999 SB Winner - John Elway (1st overall, 1983)
1998 SB Winner - John Elway (1st overall, 1983)
1997 SB Winner - Brett Favre
1996 SB Winner - Troy Aikman (1st overall, 1989)
1995 SB Winner - Steve Young (1st overall, 1984s)
1994 SB Winner - Troy Aikman (1st overall, 1989)
1993 SB Winner - Troy Aikman (1st overall, 1989)
1992 SB Winner - Mark Rypien
1991 SB Winner - Jeff Hosstetler
1990 SB Winner - Joe Montana
1989 SB Winner - Joe Montana
1988 SB Winner - Doug Williams
1987 SB Winner - Phil Simms (7th overall, 1979)Interesting...in the last ten years, not one top 10 QB has won the Super Bowl for the team they were drafted by. Even if you include Elway (because he never played a down for the Colts and everyone knew that from the start), you're still looking at only two of the last 10 years; and that was for a guy who was drafted in 1983.

UPDATE: Going back 20 years, we see that half of the ten SB winners were top 10 overall picks. Perhaps what we're seeing is the changing of a philosophy in more recent years, brought about by the advent of free agency and the new salary cap restrictions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even when you get a guy like P. Manning, it seems you have to pay them so much that you end up with a million holes elsewhere on the team.  Give me some Dilfer!
:shrug: Give me a Rudi Johnson, Thomas Jones, Priest Holmes, etc.

BTW - :lmao: at using Dilfer as an example for your argument, where do you think he was drafted?
Yeah, I know where he was drafted. Didn't say I'd be drafting him did I?
 
So, if Pittsburgh had the #10 pick in 2004 instead of the #11 pick, they should have passed on Big Ben?
For every Big Ben, there are three Tim Couches...at least it seems that way.
2006 SB Winner - Big Ben
2005 SB Winner - Tom Brady
2004 SB Winner - Tom Brady
2003 SB Winner - Brad Johnson
2002 SB Winner - Tom Brady
2001 SB Winner - Trent Dilfer (6th overall, 1994)
2000 SB Winner - Kurt Warner
1999 SB Winner - John Elway (1st overall, 1983)
1998 SB Winner - John Elway (1st overall, 1983)
1997 SB Winner - Brett FavreInteresting...in the last ten years, not one top 10 QB has won the Super Bowl for the team they were drafted by. Even if you include Elway (because he never played a down for the Colts and everyone knew that from the start), you're still looking at only two of the last 10 years; and that was for a guy who was drafted in 1983.
Cool, now do that for RBs or WRs or DTs etc.
 
Even when you get a guy like P. Manning, it seems you have to pay them so much that you end up with a million holes elsewhere on the team. Give me some Dilfer!
:shrug: Give me a Rudi Johnson, Thomas Jones, Priest Holmes, etc.

BTW - :lmao: at using Dilfer as an example for your argument, where do you think he was drafted?
Yeah, I know where he was drafted. Didn't say I'd be drafting him did I?
I know, I just found it funny. FWIW, I listed Thomas Jones for the same reason.
 
So, if Pittsburgh had the #10 pick in 2004 instead of the #11 pick, they should have passed on Big Ben?
For every Big Ben, there are three Tim Couches...at least it seems that way.
2006 SB Winner - Big Ben
2005 SB Winner - Tom Brady
2004 SB Winner - Tom Brady
2003 SB Winner - Brad Johnson
2002 SB Winner - Tom Brady
2001 SB Winner - Trent Dilfer (6th overall, 1994)
2000 SB Winner - Kurt Warner
1999 SB Winner - John Elway (1st overall, 1983)
1998 SB Winner - John Elway (1st overall, 1983)
1997 SB Winner - Brett FavreInteresting...in the last ten years, not one top 10 QB has won the Super Bowl for the team they were drafted by. Even if you include Elway (because he never played a down for the Colts and everyone knew that from the start), you're still looking at only two of the last 10 years; and that was for a guy who was drafted in 1983.
:goodposting:
 
I've updated it going back 20 years now...the prior decade was certainly kinder to the notion of taking a "franchise QB" early, as five of the 10 SB winners were top 10 overall picks (Simms, Young and Aikman thrice).

 
I've updated it going back 20 years now...the prior decade was certainly kinder to the notion of taking a "franchise QB" early, as five of the 10 SB winners were top 10 overall picks (Simms, Young and Aikman thrice).
But was the NFL less complex in the prior decade? Making it more predictable as to which QB would attain success?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would, but not only if a good value.

Ben as #10 - :thumbup:

Eli as #1 (minus the trade) - probably

Alex Smith as #1 - :X
:goodposting: I think too often we see GM's trying to force a square peg into a round hole with drafting QB's high in the draft. To me, a non QB can certainly have a more positive impact on a team than a QB who is just so so and was a reach in the first place (see Joey Harrington). However, if I had the chance to take Peyton Manning #1 and I was dead sure he was a special QB, I'd do it every time. Now deciding between David Carr and Julius Peppers, I think we've seen how that one has panned out. Value, value, value. If I were GM. I wouldn't be afraid to NOT take a QB if I was deciding between a QB I was unsure of and another position player I was.
 
I've updated it going back 20 years now...the prior decade was certainly kinder to the notion of taking a "franchise QB" early, as five of the 10 SB winners were top 10 overall picks (Simms, Young and Aikman thrice).
But was the NFL less complex in the prior decade? Making it more predictable as to which QB would attain success?
What I think is happening is the economics of the top 5/10 QB hasn't yet corrected itself relative to the new salary cap/free agency era. I think teams are doing a fine job of recognizing very good to great QBs in the early picks. Certainly you can't quibble with the play/ability of guys like Manning, Palmer, McNabb. However, the economics of the position in the salary cap era make it harder for teams to surround these guys with the talent elsewhere to win consistently when they've devoted so much $$$$ to young signal callers.Back when Dallas was winning SBs, Jerry Jones would and could spend any amount to improve the team and kept the entire nucleus together for the run. In San Fran, the team had a still elite Joe Montana on the roster and Steve Young as his backup. In today's NFL, it would be absolutely impossible to have someone of Young's proven caliber sitting on the bench for a few years. Just couldn't afford him.

 
I've updated it going back 20 years now...the prior decade was certainly kinder to the notion of taking a "franchise QB" early, as five of the 10 SB winners were top 10 overall picks (Simms, Young and Aikman thrice).
But was the NFL less complex in the prior decade? Making it more predictable as to which QB would attain success?
What I think is happening is the economics of the top 5/10 QB hasn't yet corrected itself relative to the new salary cap/free agency era.
I definitely agree that is part of it.
 
I've updated it going back 20 years now...the prior decade was certainly kinder to the notion of taking a "franchise QB" early, as five of the 10 SB winners were top 10 overall picks (Simms, Young and Aikman thrice).
But was the NFL less complex in the prior decade? Making it more predictable as to which QB would attain success?
What I think is happening is the economics of the top 5/10 QB hasn't yet corrected itself relative to the new salary cap/free agency era. I think teams are doing a fine job of recognizing very good to great QBs in the early picks. Certainly you can't quibble with the play/ability of guys like Manning, Palmer, McNabb. However, the economics of the position in the salary cap era make it harder for teams to surround these guys with the talent elsewhere to win consistently when they've devoted so much $$$$ to young signal callers.Back when Dallas was winning SBs, Jerry Jones would and could spend any amount to improve the team and kept the entire nucleus together for the run. In San Fran, the team had a still elite Joe Montana on the roster and Steve Young as his backup. In today's NFL, it would be absolutely impossible to have someone of Young's proven caliber sitting on the bench for a few years. Just couldn't afford him.
This is what I was trying to get at. JW is much more eloquent than I.
 
So, if Pittsburgh had the #10 pick in 2004 instead of the #11 pick, they should have passed on Big Ben?
For every Big Ben, there are three Tim Couches...at least it seems that way.
2006 SB Winner - Big Ben
2005 SB Winner - Tom Brady
2004 SB Winner - Tom Brady
2003 SB Winner - Brad Johnson
2002 SB Winner - Tom Brady
2001 SB Winner - Trent Dilfer (6th overall, 1994)
2000 SB Winner - Kurt Warner
1999 SB Winner - John Elway (1st overall, 1983)
1998 SB Winner - John Elway (1st overall, 1983)
1997 SB Winner - Brett Favre
1996 SB Winner - Troy Aikman (1st overall, 1989)
1995 SB Winner - Steve Young (1st overall, 1984s)
1994 SB Winner - Troy Aikman (1st overall, 1989)
1993 SB Winner - Troy Aikman (1st overall, 1989)
1992 SB Winner - Mark Rypien
1991 SB Winner - Jeff Hosstetler
1990 SB Winner - Joe Montana
1989 SB Winner - Joe Montana
1988 SB Winner - Doug Williams
1987 SB Winner - Phil Simms (7th overall, 1979)Interesting...in the last ten years, not one top 10 QB has won the Super Bowl for the team they were drafted by. Even if you include Elway (because he never played a down for the Colts and everyone knew that from the start), you're still looking at only two of the last 10 years; and that was for a guy who was drafted in 1983.

UPDATE: Going back 20 years, we see that half of the ten SB winners were top 10 overall picks. Perhaps what we're seeing is the changing of a philosophy in more recent years, brought about by the advent of free agency and the new salary cap restrictions.
This is nice and all, but are you saying that SB wins is the only criteria. I think that is a bit flawed since Tom Brady skews the results all by himself.Also at pick #11, I would consider Big Ben to be a top QB pick.

Let's look at playoffs recently:

2005

Roethlisberger - #11 overall

Hasselbeck - 6th round

Eli Manning - #1 overall

Peyton Manning - #1 overall

Byron Leftwich - #7 overall

Chris Simms - 3rd round

Rex Grossman - #22 overall

Carson Palmer - #1 overall

Mark Brunnell - 5th round

Jake Delhomme - Undrafted

Tom Brady - 6th round

Jake Plummer - 2nd round (#42 overall)

2004

Roethlisberger - #11 overall

Hasselbeck - 6th round

Chad Pennington - #18 overall

Peyton Manning - #1 overall

Drew Brees - 2nd round (#32 overall)

Michael Vick - #1 overall

Brett Favre - 2nd round (#33 overall)

Daunte Culpepper - #11 overall

Donovan McNabb - #2 overall

Mark Bulger - 6th round

Tom Brady - 6th round

Jake Plummer - 2nd round (#42 overall)

So in the last two playoffs you have:

8 QBs taken #1 to #11 overall

2 QBs taken in mid to late 1st round

3 QBs taken in the first 12 picks of the 2nd round

3 QBs taken in the 6th round

1 QB undrafted

This tells me that if you select the correct QB in the first round or early 2nd, you have a great chance at making the playoffs and that you can find gems in late round QBs.

Funny that there is not one QB taken in the 3rd-5th round that has even made the playoffs in the last two years.

How about this interesting stat:

Looking at the recent QBs in the first round (not counting 2005 - too early or Rivers in 2004, because he did nothing to make the playoffs) back to good old Drew Bledsoe/Mirer in 1993 and 16 of 26 QBs taken in the first have made the playoffs and 13 of 19 QBs taken in the top 11 have made the playoffs.

I would be real interested to see if other positions fared that well. Don't forget that QBs are usually select much higher, meaning that they have gone to worse teams.

 
So, if Pittsburgh had the #10 pick in 2004 instead of the #11 pick, they should have passed on Big Ben?
For every Big Ben, there are three Tim Couches...at least it seems that way.
2006 SB Winner - Big Ben
2005 SB Winner - Tom Brady
2004 SB Winner - Tom Brady
2003 SB Winner - Brad Johnson
2002 SB Winner - Tom Brady
2001 SB Winner - Trent Dilfer (6th overall, 1994)
2000 SB Winner - Kurt Warner
1999 SB Winner - John Elway (1st overall, 1983)
1998 SB Winner - John Elway (1st overall, 1983)
1997 SB Winner - Brett FavreInteresting...in the last ten years, not one top 10 QB has won the Super Bowl for the team they were drafted by. Even if you include Elway (because he never played a down for the Colts and everyone knew that from the start), you're still looking at only two of the last 10 years; and that was for a guy who was drafted in 1983.
Cool, now do that for RBs or WRs or DTs etc.
:goodposting: Excellent...the only top 10 starting RB I see on this list are Marshall Faulk & Jamal Lewis. 2/10 isn't bad I guess

 
I've updated it going back 20 years now...the prior decade was certainly kinder to the notion of taking a "franchise QB" early, as five of the 10 SB winners were top 10 overall picks (Simms, Young and Aikman thrice).
But was the NFL less complex in the prior decade? Making it more predictable as to which QB would attain success?
What I think is happening is the economics of the top 5/10 QB hasn't yet corrected itself relative to the new salary cap/free agency era. I think teams are doing a fine job of recognizing very good to great QBs in the early picks. Certainly you can't quibble with the play/ability of guys like Manning, Palmer, McNabb. However, the economics of the position in the salary cap era make it harder for teams to surround these guys with the talent elsewhere to win consistently when they've devoted so much $$$$ to young signal callers.Back when Dallas was winning SBs, Jerry Jones would and could spend any amount to improve the team and kept the entire nucleus together for the run. In San Fran, the team had a still elite Joe Montana on the roster and Steve Young as his backup. In today's NFL, it would be absolutely impossible to have someone of Young's proven caliber sitting on the bench for a few years. Just couldn't afford him.
Couldn't a bad OL or RB pick hurt more if you pick a guy like Robert Gallery at #2 or Benson at #4 and pay him almost as much as you are paying good QBs? Weren't the Patriots SB teams lauded for cobbling together a solid OL without outrageous salaries.I just don't understand this discussion around QBs when any other position taken top 5 tends to get pro-bowl player type money as well.

I guess my main though is that I have looked at tons of drafts and I don't think QBs bust out any more than any other position, but when you pick the correct or even good enough QB, you make the playoffs.

Think about Barry Sanders, great RB pick, great player, but the team barely made the playoffs. Drew Bledsoe, not the greatest QB of all time by a landslide, yet he went to the Super Bowl.

 
I don't get why anybody would draft a player that takes a year to develop and after that "development" may or may not pan out.
That satement could apply to any player taken in any round.
No it doesn't.QBs almost always take one or two years to develop. Whereas other positions are more likely to come in and make an immediate impact.
And isn't the 3rd year WR rule based on this very premise? Most WRs take a year or two to develop as well. The Boldins and Moss' of the game are the exception, not the norm.But just as there are some WRs who contribute immediately, there are also some QBs who contribute immediately as well (see all the above on Big Ben).

I would say RBs tend to contribute sooner than QBs and WRs, but on the flip side, they also generally don't play for nearly as long (ie, RBs are getting old at 30 whereas QBs are hitting their prime at 30).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well if I was a GM I would draft o/d line, possibly rb, Lb. Then I would look to find a 3-4 yr qb who was ready to take the next step.

 
Probably not. Definitely not this year.

In recent years, Byron Leftwich is the only QB that I considered a lock and even he hasn't done all that well. QB is far and away the toughest position to scout.

 
I don't get why anybody would draft a player that takes a year to develop and after that "development" may or may not pan out.
Sorry but this wasn't the pole question. These are two seperate issues.I don't honestly think anyone could say they would never do it.

 
So, if Pittsburgh had the #10 pick in 2004 instead of the #11 pick, they should have passed on Big Ben?
For every Big Ben, there are three Tim Couches...at least it seems that way.
2006 SB Winner - Big Ben
2005 SB Winner - Tom Brady
2004 SB Winner - Tom Brady
2003 SB Winner - Brad Johnson
2002 SB Winner - Tom Brady
2001 SB Winner - Trent Dilfer (6th overall, 1994)
2000 SB Winner - Kurt Warner
1999 SB Winner - John Elway (1st overall, 1983)
1998 SB Winner - John Elway (1st overall, 1983)
1997 SB Winner - Brett FavreInteresting...in the last ten years, not one top 10 QB has won the Super Bowl for the team they were drafted by. Even if you include Elway (because he never played a down for the Colts and everyone knew that from the start), you're still looking at only two of the last 10 years; and that was for a guy who was drafted in 1983.
Cool, now do that for RBs or WRs or DTs etc.
:goodposting: Excellent...the only top 10 starting RB I see on this list are Marshall Faulk & Jamal Lewis. 2/10 isn't bad I guess
I might be mistaken, but didn't Faulk win his with a team other than his original?
 
I would, but not only if a good value.

Ben as #10 - :thumbup:

Eli as #1 (minus the trade) - probably

Alex Smith as #1 - :X
:goodposting: I think too often we see GM's trying to force a square peg into a round hole with drafting QB's high in the draft. To me, a non QB can certainly have a more positive impact on a team than a QB who is just so so and was a reach in the first place (see Joey Harrington). However, if I had the chance to take Peyton Manning #1 and I was dead sure he was a special QB, I'd do it every time. Now deciding between David Carr and Julius Peppers, I think we've seen how that one has panned out. Value, value, value. If I were GM. I wouldn't be afraid to NOT take a QB if I was deciding between a QB I was unsure of and another position player I was.
That is the main question. Not "would you ever take", but "would you pass on a QB if you need one".Is this year different, as teams seem to be pursuing FAs and trading for QBs instead of trading up for Leinart/Young, they're signing Brees and Brooks, trading for Culpepper, trying to trade for Schaub, etc?

 
I voted like most people did, YES darn tooting I would. So what it takes a QB a year or two to develop? What's the other option, pay for a free agent over-hill-QB and hope he gives you 1-2 years until your 3rd/4th round QB is ready?

 
... This is nice and all, but are you saying that SB wins is the only criteria. I think that is a bit flawed since Tom Brady skews the results all by himself.Also at pick #11, I would consider Big Ben to be a top QB pick.Let's look at playoffs recently:... This tells me that if you select the correct QB in the first round or early 2nd, you have a great chance at making the playoffs and that you can find gems in late round QBs.Funny that there is not one QB taken in the 3rd-5th round that has even made the playoffs in the last two years....
I agree that the first thing I thought when looking at the SB numbers was that it wasn't a very valid test. You don't necessarily win one just because you have a top QB, and you don't necessarily fail to win one because of not having one.The playoff look is an interesting one, though I think to see how meaningful it is you need to then find what % of starting QBs are early QBs and what aren't and compare them to your playoff numbers. By that I mean that if nearly 50% of playoff QBs are top 11 picks... and 50% of all QBs are top eleven picks, then the playoff numbers would fit even a random sampling where round drafted played no role in team success.I was actually thinking Pro Bowl might be a good test to do this with since it is going to be based on the QB's performance moreso than on his team's. Though you do have the popularity contest aspect of it too, at least most guys who end up in the Pro Bowl were in the top 1/4 of QBs.
 
What's the other option, pay for a free agent over-hill-QB and hope he gives you 1-2 years until your 3rd/4th round QB is ready?
Brett Favre(Superbowl champion), Matt Schaub, Dave Gerrard, Trent Dilfer(superbowl champion)etc. etc.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even when you get a guy like P. Manning, it seems you have to pay them so much that you end up with a million holes elsewhere on the team. Give me some Dilfer!
:shrug: Give me a Rudi Johnson, Thomas Jones, Priest Holmes, etc.
It not as if a team can just find a player like Holmes, Rudi or Thomas Jones easily. You are acting as if picking those guys later on are locks. There are a ton more higher picks at RB who have panned out, and that is exactly why they are drafte early. Th later you draft a player, the less chance they have.

Of course a team can find a late round gem, but its not as if its a lock lke you are insinuating.

Id take a Brady, Priest Holmes, Steve Smith, Darrell Jackson any day as well, but your odds are not in your favour.

 
Even when you get a guy like P. Manning, it seems you have to pay them so much that you end up with a million holes elsewhere on the team. Give me some Dilfer!
:shrug: Give me a Rudi Johnson, Thomas Jones, Priest Holmes, etc.
It not as if a team can just find a player like Holmes, Rudi or Thomas Jones easily. You are acting as if picking those guys later on are locks. There are a ton more higher picks at RB who have panned out, and that is exactly why they are drafte early. Th later you draft a player, the less chance they have.

Of course a team can find a late round gem, but its not as if its a lock lke you are insinuating.

Id take a Brady, Priest Holmes, Steve Smith, Darrell Jackson any day as well, but your odds are not in your favour.
I think you're missing the point.If you're going to make the argument that you should just go get a cheap, solid veteran for QB, the same argument applies to RB. I'd be interested to see which position has more late round gems.

 
If you're going to make the argument that you should just go get a cheap, solid veteran for QB, the same argument applies to RB. I'd be interested to see which position has more late round gems.
Don't forget you don't have to draft a late round QB gem...you can trade for a starting QB almost any year.See HOFer Brett Favre.

 
Yes, but I better have a comfy relationship with the owners, ensuring myself at least a 5 year stay. I wouldn't take a QB with serious questions marks, ala the Vandy guy this season, Vince Young, and Kyle Boller types in the top ten. I want a sure thing, as I could find a gem later in the first, in all likelyhood.

 
If you're going to make the argument that you should just go get a cheap, solid veteran for QB, the same argument applies to RB. I'd be interested to see which position has more late round gems.
Don't forget you don't have to draft a late round QB gem...you can trade for a starting QB almost any year.See HOFer Brett Favre.
I'm not sure if you are kidding or not, but I wouldn't want Favre on my team at this point.He frankly isn't what he once was, would probably not be good at adapting to a new team/system at this point in his career and would cost an arm and a leg.

There's a REASON "starting" QBs are available every year - they are usually being booted from their previous team because they wore out their welcome. Not always, but usually.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top