Is drafting late round QB's a waste of time for NFL GM's? (1 Viewer)

[trader jake]

From PFT:

Phil Emery: Developing late-round quarterbacks doesnt work

Bears General Manager Phil Emery is not a believer in taking a quarterback late in the draft.

Emery says he has studied the development of quarterbacks in the NFL and found that teams that draft quarterbacks in the late round rarely turn those players into franchise starters.

I just did a little study. Its very interesting, Emery said. That developmental theory doesnt hold a whole lot of water. Theres entire classes of quarterbacks, since 06, I went back and looked at from [Jay Cutler's draft class] on when people say developmental quarterbacks, OK, so who has gotten developed? There isnt a single quarterback after the third round since 2006 that has been a long-term starter. So youre either developing thirds, and most of them have been wiped out of the league. So to get a quality quarterback, youve got to draft them high. That 2012 class is a blip on the radar thats unusual, highly unusual.

In 2012, the Seahawks got Russell Wilson in the third round and the Eagles got Nick Foles in the third round. But Emery says the good quarterbacks are usually snapped up in the first and second rounds.

That 2012 class is a blip on the radar thats unusual, highly unusual, Emery said. Most of the starters in this league come from the first and second round. So thats where you need to take a quarterback. So when you talk about quarterback every year, they have to be somebody that you truly believe will beat out the second and third quarterback that you perceive on your roster. And if not, history shows that you shouldnt make that pick.

There is, of course, a glaring exception in Tom Brady, a sixth-round pick of the Patriots in 1999. But according to Emery, the odds of finding a quarterback late in the draft are so long that youre better off not trying.

Tom Brady is one significant outlier, but is the overall philosophy a solid one? Is drafting late round quarterbacks nothing but a waste of time for NFL GM's?

 

[MAC_32]

Most late round qb's need coached up and development, it's why they fall so far. Management finds these types interesting, but when they actually get onto the field for camp these guys get easily forgotten about because they do not help coaches win and keep their jobs. If they do get a shot that opportunity may not be more than one game...or even one half...when they haven't really been coached in months because the staff has been focused on getting the teams starter ready.

Emery may have the right conclusion, but I think it is a product of a poor process.

 

[trader jake]

Emery may have the right conclusion, but I think it is a product of a poor process.

That's an interesting point. The process may or may not be poor, but we've definitely seen a decrease in the amount of time general managers, head coaches, and quarterbacks get to prove their worth before being shown the door.Logically, that would seem to be a piece of the puzzle in support of Emery's statement.

 

[Donnybrook]

Tom Brady was prior to 2006 and I don't know how much development there was since he was forced into action early due to Bledsoe's injury. Tony Romo is an example of a developmental project that worked. He, of course, wasn't drafted so won't qualify as a late round QB.

The odds are definitely stacked against later round QBs succeeding. Not only do they need to get over the hurdle of the perceived lack of talent but also they need a coach staff willing to put their reputation on the line to back them as a starter.

That said, I don't get the love for Logan Thomas spewed by Cosel, Kiper and many other scouts etc. He looks to me to be a huge multiple year project unless they are converting him to TE. I think teams will be better off with a QB prospect that may have less upside but is further along in his development ie Garrett Gilbert.

 

[Freelove]

I think the biggest flaw to his thinking lies in the fact that because of the mammoth financial commitment required to pay a top-of-draft QB, a lot of those guys end up with long term starting jobs, but don't come anywhere near what you'd hope they would as "long term starters." The guy who plays equally well, but but can be kept on the shelf because he costs pennies on the dollar isn't a "developmental failure."

I don't think 2012 is all that big an outlier when looked at this way. Guys taken mid-to-late but with wide open competitions in front of them like Wilson and Foles have succeeded, as have late rounders like Brady and even undrafteds like Romo.

NFL talent evaluators do a good job, so the QB success stories skew toward the top of the draft, but not radically so. The good-to-great starters in the league right now are a mishmash of high firsts, low firsts, second rounders, third rounders, and maybe Romo is the only really successful undrafted guy.

But is that rate of return so poor that it's a better value for your QB drafting dollar to end up with a long term starter who never achieves anything but costs a fortune? Or outright busts? Even among non-busts, how happy do we think the Rams are with Bradford by now? Or the lions with Stafford? Did the 49'ers think they got their money's worth on Alex Smith, or choose the developmental guy over him? Carson Palmer isn't making plans for Canton.

The failures skew more toward the top end of the draft too, for this reason. Because the economics mandate that the Leafs and Couches get all the chance in the world to hack it. There are a lot fewer "failures" among later picks, because "failure" often only means you didn't get your money's worth out of the guy. But then, that's a bona fide disaster if that money is a fortune's worth, but less of a big deal if you can sign a guy for Red Lobster coupons.

I think there's enough data out there in the history of the NFL draft (and league history) to suggest that the best plan, if you hope to get a franchise-changing QB, is to draft a can't miss guy really high. But I think there's more than enough Russell Wilsons, Tom Bradys, and Joe Montanas in history too to suggest that waiting is at least as viable a plan. Just as there are enough Ryan Leafs and Tim Couches to suggest that "can't miss" really isn't all that "can't miss." It all comes down to whether your franchise nails the picks they make or whiffs on them, not which round they're made in.

 

[RUSF18]

Thomas gets love from Kiper because a year and a half ago, he projected him as the #1 overall pick in the 2013 draft.

The premise makes sense. It's probably a better idea to not take any of the QBs that you feel are long term projects, but gobble them up once they hit FA or try to get them with a 7th via trade.

 

[FUBAR]

Just looking back 10 years...

Matt Cassell, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Tyler Thigpen, Matt Flynn... yeah, not a whole lot.

Cassell and Flynn both went to teams with success developing QBs. So it makes sense for Emery to avoid them.

 

[cstu]

190 QB's since 1990 have been taken in the 4th round or later.

Here are the QB's with more than 20,000 passing yards. Interestingly, only two of those were 4th or 5th round picks.

Rk 	Year 	Rnd 	Pick 	Player 	        Pos 	Tm 	From 	To 	AP1 	PB 	St 	CarAV 	G 	GS 	QBrec 	        Cmp 	Att 	Yds ▾ 	TD 	Int 	Att 	Yds 	TD 	College/Univ1 	2000 	6 	199 	Tom Brady 	QB 	NWE 	2000 	2013 	2 	9 	12 	145 	193 	191 	148-43-0 	4178 	6586 	49149 	359 	134 	434 	766 	14 	Michigan2 	1998 	6 	187 	MattHasselbeck 	QB 	GNB 	1999 	2013 	0 	3 	10 	85 	197 	152 	80-72-0 	3036 	5030 	34647 	201 	148 	341 	1227 	8 	Boston Col.3 	1993 	5 	118 	Mark Brunell 	QB 	GNB 	1994 	2011 	0 	3 	11 	96 	193 	151 	78-73-0 	2761 	4640 	32072 	184 	108 	513 	2421 	15 	Washington4 	1992 	9 	227 	Brad Johnson 	QB 	MIN 	1994 	2008 	0 	2 	8 	74 	177 	125 	72-53-0 	2668 	4326 	29054 	166 	122 	276 	657 	8 	Florida St.5 	1993 	8 	222 	Trent Green 	QB 	SDG 	1997 	2008 	0 	2 	7 	94 	120 	113 	56-57-0 	2266 	3740 	28475 	162 	114 	243 	914 	6 	Indiana6 	2000 	6 	168 	Marc Bulger 	QB 	NOR 	2002 	2009 	0 	2 	8 	57 	96 	95 	41-54-0 	1969 	3171 	22814 	122 	93 	118 	300 	8 	West Virginia7 	1992 	6 	166 	Jeff Blake 	QB 	NYJ 	1992 	2005 	0 	1 	8 	68 	120 	100 	39-61-0 	1827 	3241 	21711 	134 	99 	418 	2027 	14 	East Carolina8 	1994 	7 	197 	Gus Frerotte 	QB 	WAS 	1994 	2008 	0 	1 	5 	56 	147 	93 	45-47-1 	1699 	3106 	21291 	114 	106 	196 	315 	6 	Tulsa9 	1999 	4 	131 	Aaron Brooks 	QB 	GNB 	2000 	2006 	0 	0 	5 	65 	93 	90 	38-52-0 	1673 	2963 	20261 	123 	92 	362 	1534 	13 	Virginia

 

[Borden]

There's a bunch issues that this statement has going.

1) What is considered a late round pick? A third round pick isn't a late round pick to me. So, if you want to say mid round picks don't turn out that's a different story because if you look at the 6th and 7th round how many guys even end up making the team at any position? It doesn't seem like it's a issue there because they're not taking much more of a risk then they would be at any other position.

2) The idea seems to be that a team could be using a mid rounder (3-5) on a QB, who isn't likely to be a solid starter, and thus costing them a pick/player who is going to be a long term starter. This is true but with the NFL putting so much stock into size, hand size, throwing distance and so other stuff QBs are going to fall during the draft because NFL teams to caught up in other things besides the players abilities. This is when QBs fall to the 3 round or later.

3) This "study" went back 7 years to find long term starters. So, how many long term starters can actually be found and what is considered long term? I would think it has to be at least 3 years. So, really a 5 year window was looked at.

4) Sticking with the idea that mid round picks are wasted on QBs because the team could've drafted a better and productive player, how much better of player could've a team got if they didn't draft Couch, Leaf, Weeden, Jamarcus, etcetera?

5) As was already said, most early round QBs are going to get a much better shot at starting and holding onto their job. So, the whole notion gives the higher picks an early advantage.

What's really troubling about this is that Emery is the GM of a team that watched a mid 3rd round pick (McCown) arguably out perform an early first round pick (Cutler) just last year. I know there's more to the McCown/Cutler thing but still.

Take a QB, or any other position, where ever and when ever. As soon as a team starts defining how they want to draft, they're going to find themselves in trouble.

 

[cstu]

2) The idea seems to be that a team could be using a mid rounder (3-5) on a QB, who isn't likely to be a solid starter, and thus costing them a pick/player who is going to be a long term starter. This is true but with the NFL putting so much stock into size, hand size, throwing distance and so other stuff QBs are going to fall during the draft because NFL teams to caught up in other things besides the players abilities. This is when QBs fall to the 3 round or later.

The 3rd is still a good time to grab a QB - out of 28 QB's since 1990 drafted in the 3rd there has been Schaub, O'Donnell, Griese, McCown, Wilson, Foles, Glennon, Mallett (? still).

In the 4th and 5th rounds there have been 70 QB's and only 6 have more than 6000 passing yards.

 

[FUBAR]

190 QB's since 1990 have been taken in the 4th round or later.

Here are the QB's with more than 20,000 passing yards. Interestingly, only two of those were 4th or 5th round picks.

Rk Year Rnd Pick Player Pos Tm From To AP1 PB St CarAV G GS QBrec Cmp Att Yds ▾ TD Int Att Yds TD College/Univ1 2000 6 199 Tom Brady QB NWE 2000 2013 2 9 12 145 193 191 148-43-0 4178 6586 49149 359 134 434 766 14 Michigan2 1998 6 187 MattHasselbeck QB GNB 1999 2013 0 3 10 85 197 152 80-72-0 3036 5030 34647 201 148 341 1227 8 Boston Col.3 1993 5 118 Mark Brunell QB GNB 1994 2011 0 3 11 96 193 151 78-73-0 2761 4640 32072 184 108 513 2421 15 Washington4 1992 9 227 Brad Johnson QB MIN 1994 2008 0 2 8 74 177 125 72-53-0 2668 4326 29054 166 122 276 657 8 Florida St.5 1993 8 222 Trent Green QB SDG 1997 2008 0 2 7 94 120 113 56-57-0 2266 3740 28475 162 114 243 914 6 Indiana6 2000 6 168 Marc Bulger QB NOR 2002 2009 0 2 8 57 96 95 41-54-0 1969 3171 22814 122 93 118 300 8 West Virginia7 1992 6 166 Jeff Blake QB NYJ 1992 2005 0 1 8 68 120 100 39-61-0 1827 3241 21711 134 99 418 2027 14 East Carolina8 1994 7 197 Gus Frerotte QB WAS 1994 2008 0 1 5 56 147 93 45-47-1 1699 3106 21291 114 106 196 315 6 Tulsa9 1999 4 131 Aaron Brooks QB GNB 2000 2006 0 0 5 65 93 90 38-52-0 1673 2963 20261 123 92 362 1534 13 Virginia

Funny that some teams do this repeatedly.But most had their success for teams other than the one that drafted them.

 

[Borden]

2) The idea seems to be that a team could be using a mid rounder (3-5) on a QB, who isn't likely to be a solid starter, and thus costing them a pick/player who is going to be a long term starter. This is true but with the NFL putting so much stock into size, hand size, throwing distance and so other stuff QBs are going to fall during the draft because NFL teams to caught up in other things besides the players abilities. This is when QBs fall to the 3 round or later.

The 3rd is still a good time to grab a QB - out of 28 QB's since 1990 drafted in the 3rd there has been Schaub, O'Donnell, Griese, McCown, Wilson, Foles, Glennon, Mallett (? still).

In the 4th and 5th rounds there have been 70 QB's and only 6 have more than 6000 passing yards.

Yeah I wasn't sure 100% sure on what the article was saying because it said after the third but then referenced the 2012 draft, which I was guess was reference to Wilson and Foles in the 3rd. Might have just been saying they were one-offs because they didn't need a long development time.

For the sake of discussion let's say you're drafting for the Titans this year. You don't have a 3rd but the QB you wanted to draft in the 3rd falls to you in the 4th. Do you draft him?

 

[cstu]

2) The idea seems to be that a team could be using a mid rounder (3-5) on a QB, who isn't likely to be a solid starter, and thus costing them a pick/player who is going to be a long term starter. This is true but with the NFL putting so much stock into size, hand size, throwing distance and so other stuff QBs are going to fall during the draft because NFL teams to caught up in other things besides the players abilities. This is when QBs fall to the 3 round or later.

The 3rd is still a good time to grab a QB - out of 28 QB's since 1990 drafted in the 3rd there has been Schaub, O'Donnell, Griese, McCown, Wilson, Foles, Glennon, Mallett (? still).

In the 4th and 5th rounds there have been 70 QB's and only 6 have more than 6000 passing yards.

Yeah I wasn't sure 100% sure on what the article was saying because it said after the third but then referenced the 2012 draft, which I was guess was reference to Wilson and Foles in the 3rd. Might have just been saying they were one-offs because they didn't need a long development time.

For the sake of discussion let's say you're drafting for the Titans this year. You don't have a 3rd but the QB you wanted to draft in the 3rd falls to you in the 4th. Do you draft him?

Given the history, no. He would likely have flaws that will need work and I'd wait to see if he lasts to the 6th.

There are exceptions but I'd have to be really sure a guy fit my system and I could hide his flaws to take him in the 4th.

 

[cstu]

3) The changes in the CBA force you to accelerate a QB1 prospects timetable ( Hence I said several seasons ago that Kaepernick would get his shot at the first bump in the road for Alex Smith, several people told me I was wrong, but eventually the 49ers need to evaluate their 2nd round pick in this four year rookie contract window played a big factor)

There are no more several years apprenticeships ( i.e. McNair and Rodgers) or even one year clipboard duties ( i.e. Carson Palmer)

The money QB's are making today is a huge part of the acceleration. Teams don't want to pay one guy $20M if they have another guy on the bench making $4M they think would be successful.

Rodgers was a unique situation behind a HOF'er, but McNair is a great example of a situation that wouldn't happen now. McNair would never have sat the bench behind a Chris Chandler today.

 

[mr roboto]

Are you better off signing a UDFA? Warner and Romo come to mind.

 

[Borden]

For the sake of discussion let's say you're drafting for the Titans this year. You don't have a 3rd but the QB you wanted to draft in the 3rd falls to you in the 4th. Do you draft him?

Given the history, no. He would likely have flaws that will need work and I'd wait to see if he lasts to the 6th.

There are exceptions but I'd have to be really sure a guy fit my system and I could hide his flaws to take him in the 4th.

So, you won't take him because he fell to you in the 4th despite the fact you would've taken if you'd had your third? Just based on the historical data?

 

[FUBAR]

For the sake of discussion let's say you're drafting for the Titans this year. You don't have a 3rd but the QB you wanted to draft in the 3rd falls to you in the 4th. Do you draft him?

Given the history, no. He would likely have flaws that will need work and I'd wait to see if he lasts to the 6th.

There are exceptions but I'd have to be really sure a guy fit my system and I could hide his flaws to take him in the 4th.

So, you won't take him because he fell to you in the 4th despite the fact you would've taken if you'd had your third? Just based on the historical data?

If I would have drafted him in the 3rd, I absolutely take him in the 4th.If he was just on the short list, well, maybe.

 

[TwinTurbo]

Most picks at any position in the 4th round or later don't pan out or turn into franchise starters. And for Emery to imply it's a waste of time for QB borders on gross negligence. I would not want somebody like that as my GM.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Most picks at any position in the 4th round or later don't pan out or turn into franchise starters. And for Emery to imply it's a waste of time for QB borders on gross negligence. I would not want somebody like that as my GM.

I think the most likely explanation, by far, is he's trying to convince teams to spend picks in the first three rounds on players at a position he does not intend to address.

 

[Borden]

Most picks at any position in the 4th round or later don't pan out or turn into franchise starters. And for Emery to imply it's a waste of time for QB borders on gross negligence. I would not want somebody like that as my GM.

I argued with myself about bringing up that point too but didn't. It's because almost every other position can help on special teams or sub packages while developing.

A back up can run scout team but if he could emulate Brees, Manning, Cam, Luck and Rodgers then he's probably going to get drafted first overall. Plus, it's difficult to truly develop a guy that isn't getting to run and read his own offense. So really a back up QB can't help out on the field on Sundays like a back up at other positions can. Which makes the 4th or 5th round non-QB more valuable.

 

[FUBAR]

Most picks at any position in the 4th round or later don't pan out or turn into franchise starters. And for Emery to imply it's a waste of time for QB borders on gross negligence. I would not want somebody like that as my GM.

I think the most likely explanation, by far, is he's trying to convince teams to spend picks in the first three rounds on players at a position he does not intend to address.

Don't the bears need a back up?

 

[TwinTurbo]

Most picks at any position in the 4th round or later don't pan out or turn into franchise starters. And for Emery to imply it's a waste of time for QB borders on gross negligence. I would not want somebody like that as my GM.

I argued with myself about bringing up that point too but didn't. It's because almost every other position can help on special teams or sub packages while developing.

A back up can run scout team but if he could emulate Brees, Manning, Cam, Luck and Rodgers then he's probably going to get drafted first overall. Plus, it's difficult to truly develop a guy that isn't getting to run and read his own offense. So really a back up QB can't help out on the field on Sundays like a back up at other positions can. Which makes the 4th or 5th round non-QB more valuable.

And yet some teams will spend $3-4m per year on backup QBs like Kyle Orton or Matt Moore. I'm not saying teams should do this, but backup QB is certainly the most highly paid backup position on average even though all they do is hold a clipboard. And even though almost all of them are not very good. Or if they do end up playing well like Josh McCown, the team still keeps the starter no matter what.

So instead of overpaying for a journeyman backup QB that you hope to never use, why not take a chance on a later round rookie QB even if it only has a 10% chance of paying off? Also there is a better than average chance Jay Cutler will get hurt again. And the Bears only have Jordan Palmer now which is basically no backup at all.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Most picks at any position in the 4th round or later don't pan out or turn into franchise starters. And for Emery to imply it's a waste of time for QB borders on gross negligence. I would not want somebody like that as my GM.

I think the most likely explanation, by far, is he's trying to convince teams to spend picks in the first three rounds on players at a position he does not intend to address.

Don't the bears need a back up?

Yeah, that's another reason to do this -- maybe he thinks this will convince teams not to draft a QB in the 4th or 5th round that Emery wants.

 

[cstu]

For the sake of discussion let's say you're drafting for the Titans this year. You don't have a 3rd but the QB you wanted to draft in the 3rd falls to you in the 4th. Do you draft him?

Given the history, no. He would likely have flaws that will need work and I'd wait to see if he lasts to the 6th.

There are exceptions but I'd have to be really sure a guy fit my system and I could hide his flaws to take him in the 4th.

So, you won't take him because he fell to you in the 4th despite the fact you would've taken if you'd had your third? Just based on the historical data?

If I would have drafted him in the 3rd, I absolutely take him in the 4th.If he was just on the short list, well, maybe.

Apparently no one else liked your potential franchise QB enough to draft him in the 4th. Unless you are a tremendous evaluator of talent there's probably a problem with the guy.

 

[Dippa]

I think the biggest flaw to his thinking lies in the fact that because of the mammoth financial commitment required to pay a top-of-draft QB, a lot of those guys end up with long term starting jobs, but don't come anywhere near what you'd hope they would as "long term starters." The guy who plays equally well, but but can be kept on the shelf because he costs pennies on the dollar isn't a "developmental failure."

I don't think 2012 is all that big an outlier when looked at this way. Guys taken mid-to-late but with wide open competitions in front of them like Wilson and Foles have succeeded, as have late rounders like Brady and even undrafteds like Romo.

NFL talent evaluators do a good job, so the QB success stories skew toward the top of the draft, but not radically so. The good-to-great starters in the league right now are a mishmash of high firsts, low firsts, second rounders, third rounders, and maybe Romo is the only really successful undrafted guy.

But is that rate of return so poor that it's a better value for your QB drafting dollar to end up with a long term starter who never achieves anything but costs a fortune? Or outright busts? Even among non-busts, how happy do we think the Rams are with Bradford by now? Or the lions with Stafford? Did the 49'ers think they got their money's worth on Alex Smith, or choose the developmental guy over him? Carson Palmer isn't making plans for Canton.

The failures skew more toward the top end of the draft too, for this reason. Because the economics mandate that the Leafs and Couches get all the chance in the world to hack it. There are a lot fewer "failures" among later picks, because "failure" often only means you didn't get your money's worth out of the guy. But then, that's a bona fide disaster if that money is a fortune's worth, but less of a big deal if you can sign a guy for Red Lobster coupons.

I think there's enough data out there in the history of the NFL draft (and league history) to suggest that the best plan, if you hope to get a franchise-changing QB, is to draft a can't miss guy really high. But I think there's more than enough Russell Wilsons, Tom Bradys, and Joe Montanas in history too to suggest that waiting is at least as viable a plan. Just as there are enough Ryan Leafs and Tim Couches to suggest that "can't miss" really isn't all that "can't miss." It all comes down to whether your franchise nails the picks they make or whiffs on them, not which round they're made in.

You make some good points, but a lot of your post seems to be focused on how it was under the old CBA. Whiffing on a first round QB is nowhere near as financially crippling as it was a few years ago, and it can be huge salary cap advantage if you hit on one.

Teams have been overdrafting QBs for the last few years and I expect that it will continue under the new CBA. If that is Emery's point, I can see it. When a position is overdrafted, it often presents less value to draft that position.

 

[cstu]

You make some good points, but a lot of your post seems to be focused on how it was under the old CBA. Whiffing on a first round QB is nowhere near as financially crippling as it was a few years ago, and it can be huge salary cap advantage if you hit on one.

Teams have been overdrafting QBs for the last few years and I expect that it will continue under the new CBA. If that is Emery's point, I can see it. When a position is overdrafted, it often presents less value to draft that position.

Right. I expect smart teams to move up from the 2nd to the late 1st to grab their QB so they can get that cheap 5th year option. If the 49ers and Bengals had done that they would have an extra year to decide what to do with Kaepernick and Dalton.

 

[Borden]

Most picks at any position in the 4th round or later don't pan out or turn into franchise starters. And for Emery to imply it's a waste of time for QB borders on gross negligence. I would not want somebody like that as my GM.

I argued with myself about bringing up that point too but didn't. It's because almost every other position can help on special teams or sub packages while developing.A back up can run scout team but if he could emulate Brees, Manning, Cam, Luck and Rodgers then he's probably going to get drafted first overall. Plus, it's difficult to truly develop a guy that isn't getting to run and read his own offense. So really a back up QB can't help out on the field on Sundays like a back up at other positions can. Which makes the 4th or 5th round non-QB more valuable.

And yet some teams will spend $3-4m per year on backup QBs like Kyle Orton or Matt Moore. I'm not saying teams should do this, but backup QB is certainly the most highly paid backup position on average even though all they do is hold a clipboard. And even though almost all of them are not very good. Or if they do end up playing well like Josh McCown, the team still keeps the starter no matter what.

So instead of overpaying for a journeyman backup QB that you hope to never use, why not take a chance on a later round rookie QB even if it only has a 10% chance of paying off? Also there is a better than average chance Jay Cutler will get hurt again. And the Bears only have Jordan Palmer now which is basically no backup at all.

You've kind of answered your own questions.

Why didn't the Bears keep McCown? Because the Bucs are paying the 35 year old QB $10 mil over the next two years.

Why do teams pay Matt Moore and Kyle Orton because they've both played and won games. They proven they if you're starter gets hurt they can still do the job. Plus, they likely are brought in to help the starter learn and get better. If your correct about Jordan Palmer then the Bears don't have this luxury. Bringing in a rookie 4th or 5th doesn't mean that he's a capable back out of the gate. He has to learn the playbook, timing and teammates habits before he can even start to worry about the defence and adjusting to game speed. He probably isn't going to help improve/coach up the starter in anyway either.

I didn't agree with the Emery either initially. But if we focus in on just these two rounds (4th and 5th) and assume that a team is just looking to draft a player based on his position and not because it's guy they targeted and like then, I agree with Emery that they should draft a different position that can help out on special teams and/or sub packages.

 

[Xue]

Dear Phil Emery, late-round QBs don't develop because they aren't paid as much as 1st rounders to suck.

"So to get a quality quarterback, you've got to draft them high". No Phil, because you drafted them high, you are more committed to them.

"Most of the starters in this league come from the first and second round. So that's where you need to take a quarterback." If you really like a guy, you obviously have to take them early or else someone else will, then you get stuck with choosing from guys you don't like anyway in the later rounds who probably aren't that good or you probably aren't going to commit much to.

It all comes down to these two statements: Just because a QB was a 1st rounder or 2nd rounder, it doesn't mean they were any good are going to be any good. Just because a QB is your long-term starter it doesn't mean they are any good. You draft them high because you HAVE to.

 

[Borden]

For the sake of discussion let's say you're drafting for the Titans this year. You don't have a 3rd but the QB you wanted to draft in the 3rd falls to you in the 4th. Do you draft him?

Given the history, no. He would likely have flaws that will need work and I'd wait to see if he lasts to the 6th.

There are exceptions but I'd have to be really sure a guy fit my system and I could hide his flaws to take him in the 4th.

So, you won't take him because he fell to you in the 4th despite the fact you would've taken if you'd had your third? Just based on the historical data?

If I would have drafted him in the 3rd, I absolutely take him in the 4th.If he was just on the short list, well, maybe.

Apparently no one else liked your potential franchise QB enough to draft him in the 4th. Unless you are a tremendous evaluator of talent there's probably a problem with the guy.

With that logic no body should get drafted after the fourth round. And yes a team should think that it has better evaluators than every other team. The freedom of getting out of the group think is why the Seahawks have rings.

Everyone in the 4th and 5th has flaws but if a team sees something they really like in player and have that player rated the highest I their board than regardless of position they should draft him. Do they think he's going to be a day one starter or a franchise QB? But I doubt they thing they'll get a franchise LT or MLB either.

 

[trader jake]

Just looking back 10 years...

Matt Cassell, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Tyler Thigpen, Matt Flynn... yeah, not a whole lot.

Cassell and Flynn both went to teams with success developing QBs. So it makes sense for Emery to avoid them.

Interesting that from that group only Flynn had significant playing time for a "major" college program. Not sure if that's meaningful or not.In his draft class Matt Flynn was the Packers 7th round pick. In the 2nd the Packers selected QB Brian Brohm.

If Ted Thompson had been utilizing Emory's stated draft theory, Green Bay would have missed out on a solid, long-term back-up and maybe even made a bigger mistake on Brohm by feeling compelled to keep him around longer than they did.

 

[Bri]

Drafting QBs late hasn't beared a lot of fruit and to me it's more about the thinking than the results.

Graham Harrell has been a college coach in-between stints with the Packers. He was undrafted but had good enough college stats he might have been in other years. Anywho, the future coach cerebral type seems to be a nice backup to have. Obviously Jon and Jay Gruden weren't much as players and there's others people could list here. Jason Garrett had some good games but all in all I thought he was eh as a QB.

The Giants drafted a Kentucky QB late(or UDFA) that was a highly ranked prospect that just completely plummeted and before he was done with college his rankings were oh so low. It's worth seeing if he's fixable. I'd be fine with a team doing this and if he was once oh so impressive, well maybe it's a nice developmental project.

I think Aaron Rodgers and some like him are very rare. Most athletes need to play to do well and can't just come in and do well. We adored some backups like Frank Reich in a thread recently and it's a different mindset to be able to be such a great relief pitcher. It also takes so much "I gotta be ready" training that it's very hard to find a young man so determined to be ready for such a long period.

The Titans had Rusty that was maybe the worst QB I had ever seen. I do not know how he stayed with them 3 years nor what redeeming quality made them keep him.

I don't much care for Curtis Painter and so many backup QBs.

Ryan Fitzpatrick is one of the few NFL backups I think are decent. Charlie Batch used to be. I loved Mike McMahon when he was on the Lions because he came in with such fire to him. It didn't work out so well, but I love a backup with that kind of energy.

The Titans stole Tyler Wilson off the Raiders PS and I'll tell ya what, if people here write long threads about a guy's potential he's probably worth a developmental project. Whitehurst seems like Harrell. They have no one that can play if and when Locker goes down. I think a lot of teams are terrible like this.

The Bills revamped their QBs to have three young guys they figure can play and at least one was a no-name QB to many. I loved it last year. It brought intrigue and curiousity. Mallett...still don't know how he'd do as a starter. I think teams should only roster players that can play. The cerebral future coach stuff and gimmicky running types...all that is junk. I don't care if a team dusts off Armanti Edwards because they think he can play and he flops in his first NFL QB action, just show me an effort. I think NFL GMs owe us a QB that they believe can play

 

[Anarchy99]

GMs should know that drafting anyone in rounds 4-7 is a crapshoot. I don't think many of them dip into the later rounds expecting to find their starting QB. But since the thread mentioned the seemingly lack of success in drafting later round QBs, I wondered how they generally fared versus other positions. Using a very basic approach, here were the number of players drafted in rounds 4-7 since 2000 that earned at least one Pro Bowl selection at each position. Bear in mind that some of the skill position players ended up making the Pro Bowl as special teamers, so they may not have been as valuable to their offenses.

QB 5

RB 6

FB 2

WR 12

TE 4

C 2

G 4

T 4

DT 3

DE 12

LB 3

DB 12

PK 4

P 4

At first blush, it does not appear that late round QBs were less represented than the other positions. When you factor in that there are usually 4 or 5 DBs and 2-3 WRs on the field at the same time, the distribution of Pro Bowl selections seems to be pretty even. The position that seems to have been most fruitful was probably DE (with LB being one of the less productive spots).

Again, not the most comprehensive of analyses, but at least a base line for comparison.

 

[The_Wolfman]

You all realize, of course, that this is simply a genius smokescreen by Emery to get the late-round QB he covets, right?

 

[massraider]

Emery is right. Not really sure why "developmental quarterback" is such a romantic term to football fans.

The Aaron Rodgers model, young arm develops behind the vet, then takes over--how often does that happen? Almost never. Forget about late rounders, that doesn't happen with 1st or 2nd rounders. When is this 'developing' taking place? Any coach that may be able to do that, is concentrating on the starter.

The best starters are drafted as starters, given the ball immediately, and learn on the job. The best backups are failed starters elsewhere.

 

[lod01]

Dear Phil Emery, late-round QBs don't develop because they aren't paid as much as 1st rounders to suck.

"So to get a quality quarterback, you've got to draft them high". No Phil, because you drafted them high, you are more committed to them.

"Most of the starters in this league come from the first and second round. So that's where you need to take a quarterback." If you really like a guy, you obviously have to take them early or else someone else will, then you get stuck with choosing from guys you don't like anyway in the later rounds who probably aren't that good or you probably aren't going to commit much to.

It all comes down to these two statements: Just because a QB was a 1st rounder or 2nd rounder, it doesn't mean they were any good are going to be any good. Just because a QB is your long-term starter it doesn't mean they are any good. You draft them high because you HAVE to.

I'm in agreement with this. A 1st round QB will get more time to develop than a late round pick. He can continue to make the same mistake game after game and not be yanked. A late round pick gets one maybe 2 shots before he's back on the bench.

I'd bet that there are quite a few QBs sitting on benches that could start and do well in the NFL but never get that Tom Brady shot.

 

[Anarchy99]

I'd bet that there are quite a few QBs sitting on benches that could start and do well in the NFL but never get that Tom Brady shot.

There have been quite a mix of players that entered the NFL as mostly no names or back ups in the past 10-15 years. Guys like Brady, Warner, Romo, Trent Green, Romo, Delhomme, and Hasselbeck ended up having some success that really wasn't projected from them. Even guys like Jon Kitna ended up starting 100+ games pretty much out of nowhere (obviously without the career resumes of some of those other guys).

But other guys have had at least a shot to earn or carve out a bigger role. Cassel took two teams to the playoffs in a three year stretch and now is barely clinging to a back up job. Guys like Flynn and Kolb had initial or limited success when they got a chance but the league did not really embrace them when they became available. Billy Volek had a month for the ages and never did much after that. Derek Anderson was a 6th round pick that started for a few years and then faded. Kyle Orton was a 4th round pick and started for both the Bears and Broncos for a few years before ending up as a back up. I'm sure there is a long list of other guys that at least had a shot at some point.

I think part of the issue is that if a no name gets a chance on a terrible team, the odds are that the team will be just as terrible. And if the no name steps in on a great team and fills in for an elite QB, then suddenly it's the great team or the system that is the reason for success and maybe not the QB (look at the Rams, Pats, Packers as examples). Not every back up on a great offense turns it on and produces (just look at the Colts when Manning didn't play).

In the main, I suspect that there are many more examples of guys that filled in and never amounted to much than there are stories of huge successes. But that's party true in general, as there are not a ton of huge successes in the first place.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

GMs should know that drafting anyone in rounds 4-7 is a crapshoot. I don't think many of them dip into the later rounds expecting to find their starting QB. But since the thread mentioned the seemingly lack of success in drafting later round QBs, I wondered how they generally fared versus other positions. Using a very basic approach, here were the number of players drafted in rounds 4-7 since 2000 that earned at least one Pro Bowl selection at each position. Bear in mind that some of the skill position players ended up making the Pro Bowl as special teamers, so they may not have been as valuable to their offenses.

QB 5

RB 6

FB 2

WR 12

TE 4

C 2

G 4

T 4

DT 3

DE 12

LB 3

DB 12

PK 4

P 4

At first blush, it does not appear that late round QBs were less represented than the other positions. When you factor in that there are usually 4 or 5 DBs and 2-3 WRs on the field at the same time, the distribution of Pro Bowl selections seems to be pretty even. The position that seems to have been most fruitful was probably DE (with LB being one of the less productive spots).

Again, not the most comprehensive of analyses, but at least a base line for comparison.

Who were the 5 QB's, besides Brady?

I'll add that UDFA's like Romo should not be forgotten, or if he's the only one he should not be forgotten because technically they could have been picked in that range.

Also, backup QB's aren't exactly completely irrelevant, teams do carry them and need to replace them from time to time and quality vets cost money.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Emery is right. Not really sure why "developmental quarterback" is such a romantic term to football fans.

The Aaron Rodgers model, young arm develops behind the vet, then takes over--how often does that happen? Almost never. Forget about late rounders, that doesn't happen with 1st or 2nd rounders. When is this 'developing' taking place? Any coach that may be able to do that, is concentrating on the starter.

The best starters are drafted as starters, given the ball immediately, and learn on the job. The best backups are failed starters elsewhere.

Is this really true? There might be some bad talent evaluation at QB going on. Warner with Vermeil/Martz is a famous story but is considered an exception, but what happens when the right QB meets the right OC or HC? Fouts with Coryell in SD, Romo and Brees with Payton, McCown with Trestman, Foles with Kelly, Smith with Harbaugh and Reid, there are QBs who go quite a while without being graded out at all-pro quality until they hit with the right system. Just because teams go with primo QBs in the 1st round often as their franchise QBs doesn't mean other QBs could not succeed just as well or even do better given the right coach and system. Emery says this but meanwhile his coach just made Josh McCown look great and he has Jordan Palmer (past 6th rounder) now waiting in the wings as a backup and just watch if (and maybe when) he gets in behind Cutler he will probably be worth grabbing off the WW too.

 

[Anarchy99]

GMs should know that drafting anyone in rounds 4-7 is a crapshoot. I don't think many of them dip into the later rounds expecting to find their starting QB. But since the thread mentioned the seemingly lack of success in drafting later round QBs, I wondered how they generally fared versus other positions. Using a very basic approach, here were the number of players drafted in rounds 4-7 since 2000 that earned at least one Pro Bowl selection at each position. Bear in mind that some of the skill position players ended up making the Pro Bowl as special teamers, so they may not have been as valuable to their offenses.

QB 5

RB 6

FB 2

WR 12

TE 4

C 2

G 4

T 4

DT 3

DE 12

LB 3

DB 12

PK 4

P 4

At first blush, it does not appear that late round QBs were less represented than the other positions. When you factor in that there are usually 4 or 5 DBs and 2-3 WRs on the field at the same time, the distribution of Pro Bowl selections seems to be pretty even. The position that seems to have been most fruitful was probably DE (with LB being one of the less productive spots).

Again, not the most comprehensive of analyses, but at least a base line for comparison.

Who were the 5 QB's, besides Brady?

I'll add that UDFA's like Romo should not be forgotten, or if he's the only one he should not be forgotten because technically they could have been picked in that range.

Also, backup QB's aren't exactly completely irrelevant, teams do carry them and need to replace them from time to time and quality vets cost money.

Tom Brady, Marc Bulger, Derek Anderson, Matt Cassel, David Garrard

 

[mr roboto]

GMs should know that drafting anyone in rounds 4-7 is a crapshoot. I don't think many of them dip into the later rounds expecting to find their starting QB. But since the thread mentioned the seemingly lack of success in drafting later round QBs, I wondered how they generally fared versus other positions. Using a very basic approach, here were the number of players drafted in rounds 4-7 since 2000 that earned at least one Pro Bowl selection at each position. Bear in mind that some of the skill position players ended up making the Pro Bowl as special teamers, so they may not have been as valuable to their offenses.

QB 5

RB 6

FB 2

WR 12

TE 4

C 2

G 4

T 4

DT 3

DE 12

LB 3

DB 12

PK 4

P 4

At first blush, it does not appear that late round QBs were less represented than the other positions. When you factor in that there are usually 4 or 5 DBs and 2-3 WRs on the field at the same time, the distribution of Pro Bowl selections seems to be pretty even. The position that seems to have been most fruitful was probably DE (with LB being one of the less productive spots).

Again, not the most comprehensive of analyses, but at least a base line for comparison.

Who were the 5 QB's, besides Brady?

I'll add that UDFA's like Romo should not be forgotten, or if he's the only one he should not be forgotten because technically they could have been picked in that range.

Also, backup QB's aren't exactly completely irrelevant, teams do carry them and need to replace them from time to time and quality vets cost money.

Tom Brady, Marc Bulger, Derek Anderson, Matt Cassel, David Garrard

That tells you FAR MORE about the 'Pro Bowl' right there.

 

[Anarchy99]

GMs should know that drafting anyone in rounds 4-7 is a crapshoot. I don't think many of them dip into the later rounds expecting to find their starting QB. But since the thread mentioned the seemingly lack of success in drafting later round QBs, I wondered how they generally fared versus other positions. Using a very basic approach, here were the number of players drafted in rounds 4-7 since 2000 that earned at least one Pro Bowl selection at each position. Bear in mind that some of the skill position players ended up making the Pro Bowl as special teamers, so they may not have been as valuable to their offenses.

QB 5

RB 6

FB 2

WR 12

TE 4

C 2

G 4

T 4

DT 3

DE 12

LB 3

DB 12

PK 4

P 4

At first blush, it does not appear that late round QBs were less represented than the other positions. When you factor in that there are usually 4 or 5 DBs and 2-3 WRs on the field at the same time, the distribution of Pro Bowl selections seems to be pretty even. The position that seems to have been most fruitful was probably DE (with LB being one of the less productive spots).

Again, not the most comprehensive of analyses, but at least a base line for comparison.

Who were the 5 QB's, besides Brady?

I'll add that UDFA's like Romo should not be forgotten, or if he's the only one he should not be forgotten because technically they could have been picked in that range.

Also, backup QB's aren't exactly completely irrelevant, teams do carry them and need to replace them from time to time and quality vets cost money.

Tom Brady, Marc Bulger, Derek Anderson, Matt Cassel, David Garrard

That tells you FAR MORE about the 'Pro Bowl' right there.

It is what it is. If "real" Pro Bowl QBs opt not to participate, they have to take somebody. The point being, teams still got at least halfway decent seasons from guys that were not first day talents. Warner, Garcia, Delhomme, and Romo were undrafted. Gannon, Hasselbeck, Grbac, Green, and Brad Johnson were 4th rounders or later. Combined with the other players I listed, that is still a decent ROI for not a lot of draft day capital.

 

[cstu]

For the sake of discussion let's say you're drafting for the Titans this year. You don't have a 3rd but the QB you wanted to draft in the 3rd falls to you in the 4th. Do you draft him?

Given the history, no. He would likely have flaws that will need work and I'd wait to see if he lasts to the 6th.

There are exceptions but I'd have to be really sure a guy fit my system and I could hide his flaws to take him in the 4th.

So, you won't take him because he fell to you in the 4th despite the fact you would've taken if you'd had your third? Just based on the historical data?

If I would have drafted him in the 3rd, I absolutely take him in the 4th.If he was just on the short list, well, maybe.

Apparently no one else liked your potential franchise QB enough to draft him in the 4th. Unless you are a tremendous evaluator of talent there's probably a problem with the guy.

With that logic no body should get drafted after the fourth round. And yes a team should think that it has better evaluators than every other team. The freedom of getting out of the group think is why the Seahawks have rings.

Everyone in the 4th and 5th has flaws but if a team sees something they really like in player and have that player rated the highest I their board than regardless of position they should draft him. Do they think he's going to be a day one starter or a franchise QB? But I doubt they thing they'll get a franchise LT or MLB either.

I'm not against taking a QB in the 6th/7th, but there are better positions to gamble on than a QB in the 4th/5th.

Once you get to the 6th and 7th the chances of getting a quality starter are low so why not roll the dice on QB? The risk is very low while the reward is extremely high. Even if you have a 5% chance of hitting on a QB it's worth doing if there's a guy you like.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

The only positions that usually start in the late rounds are kickers, punters, & long snappers.

 

[Faust]

2014 NFL Draft: Where will QBs be in a decade?

 

[msudaisy26]

I didn't read all of the post but I think a lot of the problem lies in the fact teams that take the late quarterbacks are drafting guys to backup Rodgers, Brady and Manning. They aren't coached up, or receive the reps to become starters in the NFL.

 

[TwinTurbo]

Most picks at any position in the 4th round or later don't pan out or turn into franchise starters. And for Emery to imply it's a waste of time for QB borders on gross negligence. I would not want somebody like that as my GM.

I argued with myself about bringing up that point too but didn't. It's because almost every other position can help on special teams or sub packages while developing.A back up can run scout team but if he could emulate Brees, Manning, Cam, Luck and Rodgers then he's probably going to get drafted first overall. Plus, it's difficult to truly develop a guy that isn't getting to run and read his own offense. So really a back up QB can't help out on the field on Sundays like a back up at other positions can. Which makes the 4th or 5th round non-QB more valuable.

And yet some teams will spend $3-4m per year on backup QBs like Kyle Orton or Matt Moore. I'm not saying teams should do this, but backup QB is certainly the most highly paid backup position on average even though all they do is hold a clipboard. And even though almost all of them are not very good. Or if they do end up playing well like Josh McCown, the team still keeps the starter no matter what.

So instead of overpaying for a journeyman backup QB that you hope to never use, why not take a chance on a later round rookie QB even if it only has a 10% chance of paying off? Also there is a better than average chance Jay Cutler will get hurt again. And the Bears only have Jordan Palmer now which is basically no backup at all.

You've kind of answered your own questions.

Why didn't the Bears keep McCown? Because the Bucs are paying the 35 year old QB $10 mil over the next two years.

Why do teams pay Matt Moore and Kyle Orton because they've both played and won games. They proven they if you're starter gets hurt they can still do the job. Plus, they likely are brought in to help the starter learn and get better. If your correct about Jordan Palmer then the Bears don't have this luxury. Bringing in a rookie 4th or 5th doesn't mean that he's a capable back out of the gate. He has to learn the playbook, timing and teammates habits before he can even start to worry about the defence and adjusting to game speed. He probably isn't going to help improve/coach up the starter in anyway either.

I didn't agree with the Emery either initially. But if we focus in on just these two rounds (4th and 5th) and assume that a team is just looking to draft a player based on his position and not because it's guy they targeted and like then, I agree with Emery that they should draft a different position that can help out on special teams and/or sub packages.

The Bears didn't keep McCown because Emery signed Jay Cutler to a mega deal that he arguably isn't worth. I can't blame them for picking Cutler over McCown, but you can't keep both. It goes back to the principle of not paying a backup QB $3M-$5M a year, no matter how many games they have started or won. Kyle Orton proved last year why it's a bad idea, while McCown proved the cheaper backups are often better options. But the Bears also screwed up with McCown's contract. Had they offered him $1 more than the minimum salary level when signing him, they could have protected their right to extend his deal if they had actually been interested in keeping him. As it turns out, they weren't.

Also backup QBs can play special teams too. See Tim Tebow. But that's also a dumb idea. See Rex Ryan. It would also be interesting to see how many 4th and 5th round picks actually play special teams vs. get waived if they don't pan out. Many special teams players are undrafted guys. And there are more undrafted players in the NFL than first round picks.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Most picks at any position in the 4th round or later don't pan out or turn into franchise starters. And for Emery to imply it's a waste of time for QB borders on gross negligence. I would not want somebody like that as my GM.

I agree with this......although not likely it happens and that is what you should be hoping for. Good scouting of a late round QB could pay off huge.

 

[trader jake]

Warner with Vermeil/Martz is a famous story but is considered an exception, but what happens when the right QB meets the right OC or HC? Fouts with Coryell in SlD, Romo and Brees with Payton, McCown with Trestman, Foles with Kelly, Smith with Harbaugh and Reid, there are QBs who go quite a while without being graded out at all-pro quality until they hit with the right system.

It could be argued that the list of coaches/players above illustrates that the head coach/offensive system is more important than the skill of the quarterbacks selected by GM's.I'd trust a middle of the road QB prospect with Kelly in Philly, Reid in KC, or Harbaugh in SF before I'd trust a 1st round prospect in about half of the other organizations around the league.

 

[Bri]

Warner with Vermeil/Martz is a famous story but is considered an exception, but what happens when the right QB meets the right OC or HC? Fouts with Coryell in SlD, Romo and Brees with Payton, McCown with Trestman, Foles with Kelly, Smith with Harbaugh and Reid, there are QBs who go quite a while without being graded out at all-pro quality until they hit with the right system.

It could be argued that the list of coaches/players above illustrates that the head coach/offensive system is more important than the skill of the quarterbacks selected by GM's.I'd trust a middle of the road QB prospect with Kelly in Philly, Reid in KC, or Harbaugh in SF before I'd trust a 1st round prospect in about half of the other organizations around the league.

well this is a wonderful list of QBs that found that one coach or one system and played great...cmon

 

[Biabreakable]

Interesting article by Toni Villiotti- http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Draft-probabilities-by-position.html

In the article he breaks down the percentage of players by position who have 5 year careers and who start for 5 years.

For QBs compared to the average of all positions-

Pick 1-13 80% to 91.3% and 64% to 71.3%

Pick 14-24 85.7% to 85.5% and 42.9% to 63%

Pick 25-48 70% to 78.8% and 40% to 48.2%

Pick 47-73 66.7% to 72.6% and 8.3% to 33.6%

Pick 74-114 62.1% to 55.3% and 13.8% to 18%

Pick 115-187 22% to 40.1% and 7.3% to 10%

Pick 188+ 25.9% to 26.9% and 7.4% to 5.4%

So the odds are a bit worse for QB at all points of the draft compared to an average player the difference is not that significant except for the 5 year starter from picks 47-73 (mid second to mid third round).

You even have a slightly better chance of getting a starter at the QB position than other positions after pick 188 (6th round or lower).