Ridiculous money spent on first round QBs (1 Viewer)

[GroveDiesel]

This seriously just does not make any sense to me. It just doesn't. Russell is signed a contract for $60M+ with guarantees somewhere in the neighborhood of $30M. How many QBs have come into the league and contributed very positively their first year? How many have been great QBs in year 2? Year 3?

It just boggles me mind that the Raiders are going to give Russell that much money to stand on the sidelines and hold a clipboard this year. And then they're going to pay him that much money to go in and look like a first year player next year. And then they're going to pay him that much money to go in and hopefully be halfway decent by Year 3. That's assuming that he's not a bust and it's all money down the drain. And honestly the worst thing that could happen to the Raiders is for Russell to be an average QB. Because then you're pretty much stuck paying him insane amounts of money every year, and chewing up huge amounts of cap space, through the entire 6 years of his contract.

With the time that it usually takes a QB to develop and the amount of money that high first round picks get, I'm now convinced that taking a QB in the top 5 picks is a terrible idea. There are too many other players out there that can contribute right away and won't be wasted salary for 2 or 3 years. And since QBs take more time to develop than any other position, I think teams are better off taking some other team's castoff and working with him. In fact, I think that the Raiders almost definitely should have taken CJ and traded for either Culpepper or Carr. Yes, David Carr. I think that David Carr would have been a better option for the Raiders than JaMarcus Russell.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

If I were a GM with the #1 overall pick, I'd do everything I could to trade out of that spot. The money is too much for the risk of the pick busting and what it does to your salary cap.

 

[Autumn Wind]

If Oakland needed any more incentive to NOT find themselves in the top 5 of the next year's draft, this should be it.

 

[The Kansas Comet]

The money paid is ridiculous - that's why the Browns' trade of their first rounder next year to move up and get Quinn this year might not be such a terrible deal. They got their QB of the future (as they see it, anyway) and didn't have to pay him top 10 QB money. They also get to develop him this year, instead of suffering through a bad season, getting a top pick, maybe selecting Brohm and paying him money similar to Russell, and then having to go through his rookie year struggles.

I can't imagine there not being some sort of rookie pay scale in the next collective bargaining agreement.

 

[Snotbubbles]

This seriously just does not make any sense to me. It just doesn't. Russell is signed a contract for $60M+ with guarantees somewhere in the neighborhood of $30M. How many QBs have come into the league and contributed very positively their first year? How many have been great QBs in year 2? Year 3?It just boggles me mind that the Raiders are going to give Russell that much money to stand on the sidelines and hold a clipboard this year. And then they're going to pay him that much money to go in and look like a first year player next year. And then they're going to pay him that much money to go in and hopefully be halfway decent by Year 3. That's assuming that he's not a bust and it's all money down the drain. And honestly the worst thing that could happen to the Raiders is for Russell to be an average QB. Because then you're pretty much stuck paying him insane amounts of money every year, and chewing up huge amounts of cap space, through the entire 6 years of his contract.With the time that it usually takes a QB to develop and the amount of money that high first round picks get, I'm now convinced that taking a QB in the top 5 picks is a terrible idea. There are too many other players out there that can contribute right away and won't be wasted salary for 2 or 3 years. And since QBs take more time to develop than any other position, I think teams are better off taking some other team's castoff and working with him. In fact, I think that the Raiders almost definitely should have taken CJ and traded for either Culpepper or Carr. Yes, David Carr. I think that David Carr would have been a better option for the Raiders than JaMarcus Russell.

Year 1: Peyton Manning, Big Ben, Vince YoungYear 2: Drew Brees, Marc Bulger, Carson Palmer, Tom Brady, Donovan McNabb, Tony Romo, Eli Manning, Mike VickYear 3: Phillip Rivers, JP LosmanJury still out: Cutler (year 2), Leinart (year 2), Alex Smith (year 3)

 

[whitem0nkey]

If I were a GM with the #1 overall pick, I'd do everything I could to trade out of that spot. The money is too much for the risk of the pick busting and what it does to your salary cap.

well now we know what jerry angelo's use name is on this site.

 

[Pygmy Marmoset]

This seriously just does not make any sense to me. It just doesn't. Russell is signed a contract for $60M+ with guarantees somewhere in the neighborhood of $30M. How many QBs have come into the league and contributed very positively their first year? How many have been great QBs in year 2? Year 3?It just boggles me mind that the Raiders are going to give Russell that much money to stand on the sidelines and hold a clipboard this year. And then they're going to pay him that much money to go in and look like a first year player next year. And then they're going to pay him that much money to go in and hopefully be halfway decent by Year 3. That's assuming that he's not a bust and it's all money down the drain. And honestly the worst thing that could happen to the Raiders is for Russell to be an average QB. Because then you're pretty much stuck paying him insane amounts of money every year, and chewing up huge amounts of cap space, through the entire 6 years of his contract.With the time that it usually takes a QB to develop and the amount of money that high first round picks get, I'm now convinced that taking a QB in the top 5 picks is a terrible idea. There are too many other players out there that can contribute right away and won't be wasted salary for 2 or 3 years. And since QBs take more time to develop than any other position, I think teams are better off taking some other team's castoff and working with him. In fact, I think that the Raiders almost definitely should have taken CJ and traded for either Culpepper or Carr. Yes, David Carr. I think that David Carr would have been a better option for the Raiders than JaMarcus Russell.

Year 1: Peyton Manning, Big Ben, Vince YoungYear 2: Drew Brees, Marc Bulger, Carson Palmer, Tom Brady, Donovan McNabb, Tony Romo, Eli Manning, Mike VickYear 3: Phillip Rivers, JP LosmanJury still out: Cutler (year 2), Leinart (year 2), Alex Smith (year 3)

Ryan LeafJoey HarringtonHeath ShulerDavid KlinglerAndre WareAkili Smith

 

[LawFitz]

Having the first overall pick is overrated given the salary cap ramifications.

Until they create a rookie salary cap, the system really doesn't give any advantage to the worst teams as it was designed to do. Sure you might draft a stud, but in theory you could just use that same $$$ to sign a free agent stud who is more proven, so where's the benefit???

 

[Snotbubbles]

This seriously just does not make any sense to me. It just doesn't. Russell is signed a contract for $60M+ with guarantees somewhere in the neighborhood of $30M. How many QBs have come into the league and contributed very positively their first year? How many have been great QBs in year 2? Year 3?It just boggles me mind that the Raiders are going to give Russell that much money to stand on the sidelines and hold a clipboard this year. And then they're going to pay him that much money to go in and look like a first year player next year. And then they're going to pay him that much money to go in and hopefully be halfway decent by Year 3. That's assuming that he's not a bust and it's all money down the drain. And honestly the worst thing that could happen to the Raiders is for Russell to be an average QB. Because then you're pretty much stuck paying him insane amounts of money every year, and chewing up huge amounts of cap space, through the entire 6 years of his contract.With the time that it usually takes a QB to develop and the amount of money that high first round picks get, I'm now convinced that taking a QB in the top 5 picks is a terrible idea. There are too many other players out there that can contribute right away and won't be wasted salary for 2 or 3 years. And since QBs take more time to develop than any other position, I think teams are better off taking some other team's castoff and working with him. In fact, I think that the Raiders almost definitely should have taken CJ and traded for either Culpepper or Carr. Yes, David Carr. I think that David Carr would have been a better option for the Raiders than JaMarcus Russell.

Year 1: Peyton Manning, Big Ben, Vince YoungYear 2: Drew Brees, Marc Bulger, Carson Palmer, Tom Brady, Donovan McNabb, Tony Romo, Eli Manning, Mike VickYear 3: Phillip Rivers, JP LosmanJury still out: Cutler (year 2), Leinart (year 2), Alex Smith (year 3)

Ryan LeafJoey HarringtonHeath ShulerDavid KlinglerAndre WareAkili Smith

I don't think your list answers the original posters question.

 

[Pygmy Marmoset]

This seriously just does not make any sense to me. It just doesn't. Russell is signed a contract for $60M+ with guarantees somewhere in the neighborhood of $30M. How many QBs have come into the league and contributed very positively their first year? How many have been great QBs in year 2? Year 3?It just boggles me mind that the Raiders are going to give Russell that much money to stand on the sidelines and hold a clipboard this year. And then they're going to pay him that much money to go in and look like a first year player next year. And then they're going to pay him that much money to go in and hopefully be halfway decent by Year 3. That's assuming that he's not a bust and it's all money down the drain. And honestly the worst thing that could happen to the Raiders is for Russell to be an average QB. Because then you're pretty much stuck paying him insane amounts of money every year, and chewing up huge amounts of cap space, through the entire 6 years of his contract.With the time that it usually takes a QB to develop and the amount of money that high first round picks get, I'm now convinced that taking a QB in the top 5 picks is a terrible idea. There are too many other players out there that can contribute right away and won't be wasted salary for 2 or 3 years. And since QBs take more time to develop than any other position, I think teams are better off taking some other team's castoff and working with him. In fact, I think that the Raiders almost definitely should have taken CJ and traded for either Culpepper or Carr. Yes, David Carr. I think that David Carr would have been a better option for the Raiders than JaMarcus Russell.

Year 1: Peyton Manning, Big Ben, Vince YoungYear 2: Drew Brees, Marc Bulger, Carson Palmer, Tom Brady, Donovan McNabb, Tony Romo, Eli Manning, Mike VickYear 3: Phillip Rivers, JP LosmanJury still out: Cutler (year 2), Leinart (year 2), Alex Smith (year 3)

Ryan LeafJoey HarringtonHeath ShulerDavid KlinglerAndre WareAkili Smith

I don't think your list answers the original posters question.

I don't think the original poster was looking simply for numbers. He was looking (though implicitly) for a ratio. Thus, I provided some counter-examples, all drafted top-10.It doesn't matter if there are 20 QBs drafted high that make it if there are 80 QBs drafted high that don't.

 

[AnonymousBob]

This seriously just does not make any sense to me. It just doesn't. Russell is signed a contract for $60M+ with guarantees somewhere in the neighborhood of $30M. How many QBs have come into the league and contributed very positively their first year? How many have been great QBs in year 2? Year 3?It just boggles me mind that the Raiders are going to give Russell that much money to stand on the sidelines and hold a clipboard this year. And then they're going to pay him that much money to go in and look like a first year player next year. And then they're going to pay him that much money to go in and hopefully be halfway decent by Year 3. That's assuming that he's not a bust and it's all money down the drain. And honestly the worst thing that could happen to the Raiders is for Russell to be an average QB. Because then you're pretty much stuck paying him insane amounts of money every year, and chewing up huge amounts of cap space, through the entire 6 years of his contract.With the time that it usually takes a QB to develop and the amount of money that high first round picks get, I'm now convinced that taking a QB in the top 5 picks is a terrible idea. There are too many other players out there that can contribute right away and won't be wasted salary for 2 or 3 years. And since QBs take more time to develop than any other position, I think teams are better off taking some other team's castoff and working with him. In fact, I think that the Raiders almost definitely should have taken CJ and traded for either Culpepper or Carr. Yes, David Carr. I think that David Carr would have been a better option for the Raiders than JaMarcus Russell.

Year 1: Peyton Manning, Big Ben, Vince YoungYear 2: Drew Brees, Marc Bulger, Carson Palmer, Tom Brady, Donovan McNabb, Tony Romo, Eli Manning, Mike VickYear 3: Phillip Rivers, JP LosmanJury still out: Cutler (year 2), Leinart (year 2), Alex Smith (year 3)

Ryan LeafJoey HarringtonHeath ShulerDavid KlinglerAndre WareAkili Smith

I don't think your list answers the original posters question.

I don't think the original poster was looking simply for numbers. He was looking (though implicitly) for a ratio. Thus, I provided some counter-examples, all drafted top-10.It doesn't matter if there are 20 QBs drafted high that make it if there are 80 QBs drafted high that don't.

Only qb's can bust? No matter what position somebody plays they can flop miserably. When a qb hits, they can REALLY pan out. You think the Titans would have won 8 games last year if they had drafted another position?

 

[massraider]

This seriously just does not make any sense to me. It just doesn't. Russell is signed a contract for $60M+ with guarantees somewhere in the neighborhood of $30M. How many QBs have come into the league and contributed very positively their first year? How many have been great QBs in year 2? Year 3?It just boggles me mind that the Raiders are going to give Russell that much money to stand on the sidelines and hold a clipboard this year. And then they're going to pay him that much money to go in and look like a first year player next year. And then they're going to pay him that much money to go in and hopefully be halfway decent by Year 3. That's assuming that he's not a bust and it's all money down the drain. And honestly the worst thing that could happen to the Raiders is for Russell to be an average QB. Because then you're pretty much stuck paying him insane amounts of money every year, and chewing up huge amounts of cap space, through the entire 6 years of his contract.With the time that it usually takes a QB to develop and the amount of money that high first round picks get, I'm now convinced that taking a QB in the top 5 picks is a terrible idea. There are too many other players out there that can contribute right away and won't be wasted salary for 2 or 3 years. And since QBs take more time to develop than any other position, I think teams are better off taking some other team's castoff and working with him. In fact, I think that the Raiders almost definitely should have taken CJ and traded for either Culpepper or Carr. Yes, David Carr. I think that David Carr would have been a better option for the Raiders than JaMarcus Russell.

Year 1: Peyton Manning, Big Ben, Vince YoungYear 2: Drew Brees, Marc Bulger, Carson Palmer, Tom Brady, Donovan McNabb, Tony Romo, Eli Manning, Mike VickYear 3: Phillip Rivers, JP LosmanJury still out: Cutler (year 2), Leinart (year 2), Alex Smith (year 3)

Ryan LeafJoey HarringtonHeath ShulerDavid KlinglerAndre WareAkili Smith

I don't think your list answers the original posters question.

I don't think the original poster was looking simply for numbers. He was looking (though implicitly) for a ratio. Thus, I provided some counter-examples, all drafted top-10.It doesn't matter if there are 20 QBs drafted high that make it if there are 80 QBs drafted high that don't.

Only qb's can bust? No matter what position somebody plays they can flop miserably. When a qb hits, they can REALLY pan out. You think the Titans would have won 8 games last year if they had drafted another position?

That's why it's worth the risk. I don't care what kind of package they could have gotten, the Colts and Bengals were better off taking Manning and Palmer. But I do think most teams are nervous about having a pick that high. that's why I don't think trading down is even a legit option anymore. When was the last time we heard about teams being bombarded with offers, so they could take a player #1? Shoot, if fans think top picks aren't worth it, I'm pretty sure NFL teams might have gotten the notion as well.And yet, somehow, teams manage to move on, even after making top 5 mistakes. I certainly don't think it is as bad as people make it out to be.

 

[GroveDiesel]

This seriously just does not make any sense to me. It just doesn't. Russell is signed a contract for $60M+ with guarantees somewhere in the neighborhood of $30M. How many QBs have come into the league and contributed very positively their first year? How many have been great QBs in year 2? Year 3?It just boggles me mind that the Raiders are going to give Russell that much money to stand on the sidelines and hold a clipboard this year. And then they're going to pay him that much money to go in and look like a first year player next year. And then they're going to pay him that much money to go in and hopefully be halfway decent by Year 3. That's assuming that he's not a bust and it's all money down the drain. And honestly the worst thing that could happen to the Raiders is for Russell to be an average QB. Because then you're pretty much stuck paying him insane amounts of money every year, and chewing up huge amounts of cap space, through the entire 6 years of his contract.With the time that it usually takes a QB to develop and the amount of money that high first round picks get, I'm now convinced that taking a QB in the top 5 picks is a terrible idea. There are too many other players out there that can contribute right away and won't be wasted salary for 2 or 3 years. And since QBs take more time to develop than any other position, I think teams are better off taking some other team's castoff and working with him. In fact, I think that the Raiders almost definitely should have taken CJ and traded for either Culpepper or Carr. Yes, David Carr. I think that David Carr would have been a better option for the Raiders than JaMarcus Russell.

Year 1: Peyton Manning, Big Ben, Vince YoungYear 2: Drew Brees, Marc Bulger, Carson Palmer, Tom Brady, Donovan McNabb, Tony Romo, Eli Manning, Mike VickYear 3: Phillip Rivers, JP LosmanJury still out: Cutler (year 2), Leinart (year 2), Alex Smith (year 3)

Alright, and out of all of those guys, how many were taken in the top 5 picks (where the HUGE bonus money and contracts are)? By my accounts, Manning, Young, Palmer, McNabb, Manning, Vick, Rivers and Alex Smith were the ones that were taken in the top 5. So that's half the guys on that list. (And this is actually Romo's FIFTH year in the league!)And sure, some DO pan out, but even then it's most likely at LEAST a year later before they do. So the team paid big money and a large part of their cap for a guy that didn't even contribute for a year at least. And with the development time of QBs, teams are more likely to wait longer before deciding to cut bait on a high draft pick as well. And if you keep them on the sidelines for the entire first year, that puts you an entire year later in assessing the player.I just don't see it. If nothing else, just look at how many good QBs in the league are playing well for a team that is not their original team:Kitna, Favre, Delhomme, Brees, and Hasselbeck. Right now, after one week, there are four QBs in the top 10 of QB rating that are not playing with their original team.

 

[TME]

I hear what you are saying, but given the money that teams are basically forced to pay top 10 picks, the only positions that should be drafted that high are QB, DE, CB, and OT. If you draft a S or LB for example, those guys, because of where they were picked and the money that the slot commands, immediately become among the top tier of highest paid in the league at the position. There are far more options in FA for very good players at these positions than you generally find at QB, DE, CB and OT. An elite player at that position will rarely ever change teams in their prime, so you have to try to get them via the draft.

But, bottom line, the rookie pay scale needs a lot of work. It makes no sense. What they need to do is make rookie contracts more reasonably priced with a 3 year term. Then, the guys that produce can re-up for the big money. I would have to think that net/net, that makes more economic sense for the league and rewards the players properly. And, to help facilitate that, the league needs to make it easier for guys to get to FA.

 

[Snotbubbles]

This seriously just does not make any sense to me. It just doesn't. Russell is signed a contract for $60M+ with guarantees somewhere in the neighborhood of $30M. How many QBs have come into the league and contributed very positively their first year? How many have been great QBs in year 2? Year 3?It just boggles me mind that the Raiders are going to give Russell that much money to stand on the sidelines and hold a clipboard this year. And then they're going to pay him that much money to go in and look like a first year player next year. And then they're going to pay him that much money to go in and hopefully be halfway decent by Year 3. That's assuming that he's not a bust and it's all money down the drain. And honestly the worst thing that could happen to the Raiders is for Russell to be an average QB. Because then you're pretty much stuck paying him insane amounts of money every year, and chewing up huge amounts of cap space, through the entire 6 years of his contract.With the time that it usually takes a QB to develop and the amount of money that high first round picks get, I'm now convinced that taking a QB in the top 5 picks is a terrible idea. There are too many other players out there that can contribute right away and won't be wasted salary for 2 or 3 years. And since QBs take more time to develop than any other position, I think teams are better off taking some other team's castoff and working with him. In fact, I think that the Raiders almost definitely should have taken CJ and traded for either Culpepper or Carr. Yes, David Carr. I think that David Carr would have been a better option for the Raiders than JaMarcus Russell.

Year 1: Peyton Manning, Big Ben, Vince YoungYear 2: Drew Brees, Marc Bulger, Carson Palmer, Tom Brady, Donovan McNabb, Tony Romo, Eli Manning, Mike VickYear 3: Phillip Rivers, JP LosmanJury still out: Cutler (year 2), Leinart (year 2), Alex Smith (year 3)

Alright, and out of all of those guys, how many were taken in the top 5 picks (where the HUGE bonus money and contracts are)? By my accounts, Manning, Young, Palmer, McNabb, Manning, Vick, Rivers and Alex Smith were the ones that were taken in the top 5. So that's half the guys on that list. (And this is actually Romo's FIFTH year in the league!)And sure, some DO pan out, but even then it's most likely at LEAST a year later before they do. So the team paid big money and a large part of their cap for a guy that didn't even contribute for a year at least. And with the development time of QBs, teams are more likely to wait longer before deciding to cut bait on a high draft pick as well. And if you keep them on the sidelines for the entire first year, that puts you an entire year later in assessing the player.I just don't see it. If nothing else, just look at how many good QBs in the league are playing well for a team that is not their original team:Kitna, Favre, Delhomme, Brees, and Hasselbeck. Right now, after one week, there are four QBs in the top 10 of QB rating that are not playing with their original team.

Not really following you now. If half the guys on the list that actually did well in their first three years were taken in the top 5 then your argument should be for selecting a QB with a top 5 pick, not the other way around.But it's not only QBs who can bust with top picks. Look at busts like Troy Williamson, Antrelle Rolle, Robert Gallery, Reggie Williams or Charles Rogers just to name a few.

 

[Chaka]

The rookie salary structure is absolutely insane. Until they change this structure, which big time agents will fight tooth-and-nail then teams simply will not benefit from high draft picks.

 

[GroveDiesel]

And yet, somehow, teams manage to move on, even after making top 5 mistakes. I certainly don't think it is as bad as people make it out to be.

Actually, I think that the evidence points to the contrary. I went back to 1999 (starting in 2004 since 2005 might be a little too early to judge) and it really seems to me that missing a top 5 pick seems to put a serious hurting on teams that usually leaves them struggling for several years at least. 2004: Robert Gallery2003: Charles Rogers2002: David Carr, Joey Harrington, Mike Williams, Quintin Jammer2001: Leonard Davis, Gerard Warren2000: Courtney Brown, Peter Warrick1999: Tim Couch, Akili Smith

 

[cstu]

Here's the list of all top 5 QB picks since 1990 (I added in the 6th and 7th picks were close enough to be nearly as expensive). Next to the name is the year they made a contribution (I used 200 pass attempts as the determining factor).Out of the 19 QB's (2004+ QB's excluded since it's too early to call) taken in top 7 only six became stars - Bledsoe, McNair, P. Manning, McNabb, Vick, and Palmer. If you only use the top 5 picks since all four 6th/7th picks were busts, that's still only 6 out of 15 (40%).

2007 - Russell2006 - Young - 1st2005 - Alex Smith - 2nd2004 - E. Manning - 1st2004 - Rivers - 3rd2003 - Palmer - 2nd, star2003 - Leftwich (#7) - 1st, bust2002 - Carr - 1st, bust2002 - Harrington - 1st, bust2001 - Vick - 2nd, star1999 - Couch - 1st, bust1999 - McNabb - 1st, star1999 - Akili Smith, bust1998 - P. Manning - 1st. star1998 - Leaf - 1st, bust1995 - McNair - 3rd, star1995 - Kerry Collins - 1st, bust1994 - Shuler - 1st, bust1994 - Dilfer (#6) - 2nd, bust1993 - Bledsoe - 1st, star1993 - Mirer - 1st, bust1992 - Klingler (#6) - 2nd, bust1990 - George - 1st, bust1990 - Andre Ware (#7) - never, bust

 

[GroveDiesel]

I hear what you are saying, but given the money that teams are basically forced to pay top 10 picks, the only positions that should be drafted that high are QB, DE, CB, and OT. If you draft a S or LB for example, those guys, because of where they were picked and the money that the slot commands, immediately become among the top tier of highest paid in the league at the position. There are far more options in FA for very good players at these positions than you generally find at QB, DE, CB and OT. An elite player at that position will rarely ever change teams in their prime, so you have to try to get them via the draft.But, bottom line, the rookie pay scale needs a lot of work. It makes no sense. What they need to do is make rookie contracts more reasonably priced with a 3 year term. Then, the guys that produce can re-up for the big money. I would have to think that net/net, that makes more economic sense for the league and rewards the players properly. And, to help facilitate that, the league needs to make it easier for guys to get to FA.

I agree. My point is that with the ridiculous rookie pay for top picks and the fact that QBs typically don't even play for at least one year, it makes a LOT more sense to take a DE, CB, OT or even WR or RB. Think about it like this: You're drafting #1 overall and you know that you're going to be giving out a $60M contract with $30M guaranteed. Your choice is between a DE and a QB. You know that if you draft the DE you can slot him right in from the beginning beginning the learning curve is not that steep. You also know that if you draft the QB you're most likely looking at a lost 1st year and 2nd year of him taking some lumps (we'll say a half year of good performance for arguments sake). Assuming 6 year contracts for both, you're essentially paying the DE $10M per performance year. You're paying the QB $13.3M.

 

[Black Box]

And yet, somehow, teams manage to move on, even after making top 5 mistakes. I certainly don't think it is as bad as people make it out to be.

Actually, I think that the evidence points to the contrary. I went back to 1999 (starting in 2004 since 2005 might be a little too early to judge) and it really seems to me that missing a top 5 pick seems to put a serious hurting on teams that usually leaves them struggling for several years at least. 2004: Robert Gallery2003: Charles Rogers2002: David Carr, Joey Harrington, Mike Williams, Quintin Jammer2001: Leonard Davis, Gerard Warren2000: Courtney Brown, Peter Warrick1999: Tim Couch, Akili Smith

To be fair, the Browns and Lions, and to a lesser extent, the Bengals, are really skewing this list

 

[Dt's Mules]

much like fantasy football, finding your quarterback in the later rounds is the way to go.

 

[TME]

I hear what you are saying, but given the money that teams are basically forced to pay top 10 picks, the only positions that should be drafted that high are QB, DE, CB, and OT. If you draft a S or LB for example, those guys, because of where they were picked and the money that the slot commands, immediately become among the top tier of highest paid in the league at the position. There are far more options in FA for very good players at these positions than you generally find at QB, DE, CB and OT. An elite player at that position will rarely ever change teams in their prime, so you have to try to get them via the draft.But, bottom line, the rookie pay scale needs a lot of work. It makes no sense. What they need to do is make rookie contracts more reasonably priced with a 3 year term. Then, the guys that produce can re-up for the big money. I would have to think that net/net, that makes more economic sense for the league and rewards the players properly. And, to help facilitate that, the league needs to make it easier for guys to get to FA.

I agree. My point is that with the ridiculous rookie pay for top picks and the fact that QBs typically don't even play for at least one year, it makes a LOT more sense to take a DE, CB, OT or even WR or RB. Think about it like this: You're drafting #1 overall and you know that you're going to be giving out a $60M contract with $30M guaranteed. Your choice is between a DE and a QB. You know that if you draft the DE you can slot him right in from the beginning beginning the learning curve is not that steep. You also know that if you draft the QB you're most likely looking at a lost 1st year and 2nd year of him taking some lumps (we'll say a half year of good performance for arguments sake). Assuming 6 year contracts for both, you're essentially paying the DE $10M per performance year. You're paying the QB $13.3M.

Yes, but, you are drafting # 1 for a reason. You cannot turn that ship around in one season, generally. So, taking a year to settle in your young QB is not that great a cost. Not to mention a young stud QB prospect will bring buzz to the city and put people in the seats. And most importantly, no position in football has a greater impact on the game than QB. So, if you really want to get a stud impact player at the most important position (which is really how you measure bang for the buck in my mind, not cost per playing year), you have to go QB.We agree for the most part, but I just think that given the pay committment for a top 10 pick, you take the greatest potential impact player at a key/expensive position, and not be too short sighted.

 

[cstu]

I hear what you are saying, but given the money that teams are basically forced to pay top 10 picks, the only positions that should be drafted that high are QB, DE, CB, and OT. If you draft a S or LB for example, those guys, because of where they were picked and the money that the slot commands, immediately become among the top tier of highest paid in the league at the position. There are far more options in FA for very good players at these positions than you generally find at QB, DE, CB and OT. An elite player at that position will rarely ever change teams in their prime, so you have to try to get them via the draft.But, bottom line, the rookie pay scale needs a lot of work. It makes no sense. What they need to do is make rookie contracts more reasonably priced with a 3 year term. Then, the guys that produce can re-up for the big money. I would have to think that net/net, that makes more economic sense for the league and rewards the players properly. And, to help facilitate that, the league needs to make it easier for guys to get to FA.

I agree. My point is that with the ridiculous rookie pay for top picks and the fact that QBs typically don't even play for at least one year, it makes a LOT more sense to take a DE, CB, OT or even WR or RB. Think about it like this: You're drafting #1 overall and you know that you're going to be giving out a $60M contract with $30M guaranteed. Your choice is between a DE and a QB. You know that if you draft the DE you can slot him right in from the beginning beginning the learning curve is not that steep. You also know that if you draft the QB you're most likely looking at a lost 1st year and 2nd year of him taking some lumps (we'll say a half year of good performance for arguments sake). Assuming 6 year contracts for both, you're essentially paying the DE $10M per performance year. You're paying the QB $13.3M.

Yes, but, you are drafting # 1 for a reason. You cannot turn that ship around in one season, generally. So, taking a year to settle in your young QB is not that great a cost. Not to mention a young stud QB prospect will bring buzz to the city and put people in the seats. And most importantly, no position in football has a greater impact on the game than QB. So, if you really want to get a stud impact player at the most important position (which is really how you measure bang for the buck in my mind, not cost per playing year), you have to go QB.We agree for the most part, but I just think that given the pay committment for a top 10 pick, you take the greatest potential impact player at a key/expensive position, and not be too short sighted.

I think teams are better off drafting QB's in later rounds to develop them or trading for talented backups the way the Seahawks and Texans have done. The QB position seems to be unique since there's much more to being successful than pure physical ability. The mental aspect is very hard to measure and it usually takes seeing a QB under NFL conditions to see if they "it".

 

[coolnerd]

If I were a GM with the #1 overall pick, I'd do everything I could to trade out of that spot. The money is too much for the risk of the pick busting and what it does to your salary cap.

The problem is finding a partner who wants to give up extra draftpicks/players all for the right to select a player who is just as risky.

 

[arcticmammal]

But, bottom line, the rookie pay scale needs a lot of work. It makes no sense. What they need to do is make rookie contracts more reasonably priced with a 3 year term. Then, the guys that produce can re-up for the big money. I would have to think that net/net, that makes more economic sense for the league and rewards the players properly. And, to help facilitate that, the league needs to make it easier for guys to get to FA.

This is what I've been saying for a long time. Not that anyone has been listening to me. But considering the league and the players a cool with a league salary cap why not have a salary cap on the rookie draft that way you're not paying unproven guys $60 million for doing nothing. I don't necessarily advocate a set year limit on a contract but the team and agent can negotiate things like length, options, various bonuses as long as they all fall into the rookie salary cap agreement. Just divide up the rounds into separate pay structures. Rd 1 picks 1-5, 6-10, rest of the round, Rd 2 picks 1-15, rest of round, so on and so forth. That way there's a set amount for each draft spot and within that they can have structures for position type too. If someone wants more money right away they can sign a longer contract or sign a shorter one and hope to have a great rookie year.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

If I were a GM with the #1 overall pick, I'd do everything I could to trade out of that spot. The money is too much for the risk of the pick busting and what it does to your salary cap.

The problem is finding a partner who wants to give up extra draftpicks/players all for the right to select a player who is just as risky.

I'd take less than "value" if I didn't go down too far (i.e. still got an elite player) yet could still save the money and get an extra pick or two. I would think multiple high picks, and by that I would include 2nd rounders, would be better to rebuild a team that's in position to draft #1 overall than having just the #1 overall would be.

 

[coolnerd]

If I were a GM with the #1 overall pick, I'd do everything I could to trade out of that spot. The money is too much for the risk of the pick busting and what it does to your salary cap.

The problem is finding a partner who wants to give up extra draftpicks/players all for the right to select a player who is just as risky.

I'd take less than "value" if I didn't go down too far (i.e. still got an elite player) yet could still save the money and get an extra pick or two. I would think multiple high picks, and by that I would include 2nd rounders, would be better to rebuild a team that's in position to draft #1 overall than having just the #1 overall would be.

You are only thinking from the stand point of the team moving down. Teams with a top 5 or so pick generally have the same problems, which will not be solved with one player. Even at "discount" price by the trade value chart, I would have little interest in giving up anything to put myself in the headache the holder of the number 1 is trying to trade out of. In fact, the way the system is set-up picks at the top portion of the 2nd round (generally able to get a 1st round valued player), could have more worth when you consider the cost of the player versus the skill of the player.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Its fine as it is. :(

 

[cstu]

If I were a GM with the #1 overall pick, I'd do everything I could to trade out of that spot. The money is too much for the risk of the pick busting and what it does to your salary cap.

The problem is finding a partner who wants to give up extra draftpicks/players all for the right to select a player who is just as risky.

I'd take less than "value" if I didn't go down too far (i.e. still got an elite player) yet could still save the money and get an extra pick or two. I would think multiple high picks, and by that I would include 2nd rounders, would be better to rebuild a team that's in position to draft #1 overall than having just the #1 overall would be.

You are only thinking from the stand point of the team moving down. Teams with a top 5 or so pick generally have the same problems, which will not be solved with one player. Even at "discount" price by the trade value chart, I would have little interest in giving up anything to put myself in the headache the holder of the number 1 is trying to trade out of. In fact, the way the system is set-up picks at the top portion of the 2nd round (generally able to get a 1st round valued player), could have more worth when you consider the cost of the player versus the skill of the player.

Every year there are teams willing to do that, yet the teams with the top picks don't do it based on a trade chart. There's a reason why teams like the Lions and Browns have top 10 picks every year.

 

[Umojamon]

With the time that it usually takes a QB to develop and the amount of money that high first round picks get, I'm now convinced that taking a QB in the top 5 picks is a terrible idea. There are too many other players out there that can contribute right away and won't be wasted salary for 2 or 3 years. And since QBs take more time to develop than any other position, I think teams are better off taking some other team's castoff and working with him. In fact, I think that the Raiders almost definitely should have taken CJ and traded for either Culpepper or Carr. Yes, David Carr. I think that David Carr would have been a better option for the Raiders than JaMarcus Russell.

I had to chuckle at the irony when you mentioned Carr. The Texans used the first overall pick of the 2002 draft on him (as in first pick in franchise history). Carr was undoubtedly talented, but he went on to obtain the NFL record for most times sacked in a season. (One can only speculate how Peyton Manning would have done with the Texans' 2002 offensive line.) Then in 2006, for some inexplicable reason, they passed on Reggie Bush. The Saints then drafted Bush and picked up Drew Brees (who apparently couldn't pass a Miami Dolphins physical, as opposed to someone like Culpepper). The Saints didn't pay Brees chump change, but the point is they used their draft pick on a running back who created more buzz than any other player in recent team history, while obtaining two talented players who contributed their first year. Everyone knows what kind of year Brees went on to have, and where David Carr is now.I won't speculate on where Carr goes from here, but he should be well seasoned in dodging defenders by now.

 

[Da Guru]

The first year of Russells deal is a complete waste.

 

[Sopranos]

The first year of Russells deal is a complete waste.

He is in Oak.. Every year of the deal is a complete waste. 30Mill for a guy that has never taken a snap..Ahhh NO..

 

[coolnerd]

If I were a GM with the #1 overall pick, I'd do everything I could to trade out of that spot. The money is too much for the risk of the pick busting and what it does to your salary cap.

The problem is finding a partner who wants to give up extra draftpicks/players all for the right to select a player who is just as risky.

I'd take less than "value" if I didn't go down too far (i.e. still got an elite player) yet could still save the money and get an extra pick or two. I would think multiple high picks, and by that I would include 2nd rounders, would be better to rebuild a team that's in position to draft #1 overall than having just the #1 overall would be.

You are only thinking from the stand point of the team moving down. Teams with a top 5 or so pick generally have the same problems, which will not be solved with one player. Even at "discount" price by the trade value chart, I would have little interest in giving up anything to put myself in the headache the holder of the number 1 is trying to trade out of. In fact, the way the system is set-up picks at the top portion of the 2nd round (generally able to get a 1st round valued player), could have more worth when you consider the cost of the player versus the skill of the player.

Every year there are teams willing to do that, yet the teams with the top picks don't do it based on a trade chart. There's a reason why teams like the Lions and Browns have top 10 picks every year.

There is zero hard evidence that rumored trades pre-draft are anything but that rumors. Over the last 10 years or so, very few trades happen, but they are noteworthy (Vick and e. Manning). In terms of on the field talent, the team moving down has had the best long-term benefit (chargers) in both of these. If I am GM, I am not willing to repeat a limited and very unsucessful transaction, which cost me more against the cap.

 

[tommyGunZ]

If I were a GM with the #1 overall pick, I'd do everything I could to trade out of that spot. The money is too much for the risk of the pick busting and what it does to your salary cap.

The problem is finding a partner who wants to give up extra draftpicks/players all for the right to select a player who is just as risky.

I'd take less than "value" if I didn't go down too far (i.e. still got an elite player) yet could still save the money and get an extra pick or two. I would think multiple high picks, and by that I would include 2nd rounders, would be better to rebuild a team that's in position to draft #1 overall than having just the #1 overall would be.

identifying "elite" players later in the draft is near impossible.

 

[CalBear]

Out of the 19 QB's (2004+ QB's excluded since it's too early to call) taken in top 7 only five became stars - Bledsoe, McNair, P. Manning, McNabb, Vick, and Palmer. If you only use the top 5 picks since all four 6th/7th picks were busts, that's still only 5 out of 15 (33%).

You list 6, not 5. (40%).

 

[SSOG]

The money paid to highly drafted QBs is insane, but the money paid to highly drafted RBs is even worse. They make just as much as the QB at a position where even the best players don't make anywhere NEAR as much money as the best QBs. JaMarcus Russell is probably one of the 5 highest paid RBs in the entire NFL, but he's not making more money than Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, or any of the other real stars. Reggie Bush, on the other hand, is making more than LaDanian Tomlinson.

 

[cstu]

Out of the 19 QB's (2004+ QB's excluded since it's too early to call) taken in top 7 only five became stars - Bledsoe, McNair, P. Manning, McNabb, Vick, and Palmer. If you only use the top 5 picks since all four 6th/7th picks were busts, that's still only 5 out of 15 (33%).

You list 6, not 5. (40%).

Thanks, I fixed it.

 

[BoltBacker]

The money paid to highly drafted QBs is insane, but the money paid to highly drafted RBs is even worse. They make just as much as the QB at a position where even the best players don't make anywhere NEAR as much money as the best QBs. JaMarcus Russell is probably one of the 5 highest paid RBs in the entire NFL, but he's not making more money than Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, or any of the other real stars. Reggie Bush, on the other hand, is making more than LaDanian Tomlinson.

But at least Adrian Peterson is making an immediate impact with MIN. Even if he is overpaid at least they are getting a high level of production out of him from game 1 on. With QB's you don't expect even above average production until late in year #2. That's two full years of throwing $ away and impacting your salary cap without getting much(or in the case of many... ANY) production out of all those salary cap $'s that could have been used to make your team better in so many other areas.

 

[Raiders Fan]

The first year of Russells deal is a complete waste.

He is in Oak.. Every year of the deal is a complete waste. 30Mill for a guy that has never taken a snap..Ahhh NO..

Wow what a comment.. So your saying Oakland can't get better?? I swear if people could type without all the slander this board would be better. Is he worth the money?? Not right now but if he turns out like Peyton he is.. TIME WILL TELL..

 

[Andy Dufresne]

If I were a GM with the #1 overall pick, I'd do everything I could to trade out of that spot. The money is too much for the risk of the pick busting and what it does to your salary cap.

The problem is finding a partner who wants to give up extra draftpicks/players all for the right to select a player who is just as risky.

I'd take less than "value" if I didn't go down too far (i.e. still got an elite player) yet could still save the money and get an extra pick or two. I would think multiple high picks, and by that I would include 2nd rounders, would be better to rebuild a team that's in position to draft #1 overall than having just the #1 overall would be.

You are only thinking from the stand point of the team moving down. Teams with a top 5 or so pick generally have the same problems, which will not be solved with one player. Even at "discount" price by the trade value chart, I would have little interest in giving up anything to put myself in the headache the holder of the number 1 is trying to trade out of. In fact, the way the system is set-up picks at the top portion of the 2nd round (generally able to get a 1st round valued player), could have more worth when you consider the cost of the player versus the skill of the player.

No, I am thinking about it. That's why I said "I'd do everything I could", but that doesn't include just giving away the pick. And it all depends on who the guy(s) are that are being considered for the #1 overall. If I knew a team in the top 5, for example, really wanted that DE at #1 and I already have a couple good ones, it might be easier to swing a deal.Really, I can't cover every scenario, but only can say that as a general rule of thumb, if the opportnity presented itself, I wouldn't hesitate to move out of that spot.

identifying "elite" players later in the draft is near impossible.

I should have been more clear... When I said I'd trade out of the #1, I wouldn't want to trade past the 10th pick, and even that's pushing it in a normal draft.

 

[cstu]

The money paid to highly drafted QBs is insane, but the money paid to highly drafted RBs is even worse. They make just as much as the QB at a position where even the best players don't make anywhere NEAR as much money as the best QBs. JaMarcus Russell is probably one of the 5 highest paid RBs in the entire NFL, but he's not making more money than Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, or any of the other real stars. Reggie Bush, on the other hand, is making more than LaDanian Tomlinson.

But at least Adrian Peterson is making an immediate impact with MIN. Even if he is overpaid at least they are getting a high level of production out of him from game 1 on. With QB's you don't expect even above average production until late in year #2. That's two full years of throwing $ away and impacting your salary cap without getting much(or in the case of many... ANY) production out of all those salary cap $'s that could have been used to make your team better in so many other areas.

That's how I see it as well. I took at look at the starting QB's in the NFL and only three of them (Peyton, Palmer and McNabb) are top 5 QB's picked before 2004 and starting on the team that drafted them. There are four more (Rivers, Eli, Young, and Alex Smith) drafted since 2004 so it appears that the odds are against all four of them panning out long term.

 

[stbugs]

Here's the list of all top 5 QB picks since 1990 (I added in the 6th and 7th picks were close enough to be nearly as expensive). Next to the name is the year they made a contribution (I used 200 pass attempts as the determining factor).Out of the 19 QB's (2004+ QB's excluded since it's too early to call) taken in top 7 only six became stars - Bledsoe, McNair, P. Manning, McNabb, Vick, and Palmer. If you only use the top 5 picks since all four 6th/7th picks were busts, that's still only 6 out of 15 (40%).

2007 - Russell2006 - Young - 1st2005 - Alex Smith - 2nd2004 - E. Manning - 1st2004 - Rivers - 3rd2003 - Palmer - 2nd, star2003 - Leftwich (#7) - 1st, bust2002 - Carr - 1st, bust2002 - Harrington - 1st, bust2001 - Vick - 2nd, star1999 - Couch - 1st, bust1999 - McNabb - 1st, star1999 - Akili Smith, bust1998 - P. Manning - 1st. star1998 - Leaf - 1st, bust1995 - McNair - 3rd, star1995 - Kerry Collins - 1st, bust1994 - Shuler - 1st, bust1994 - Dilfer (#6) - 2nd, bust1993 - Bledsoe - 1st, star1993 - Mirer - 1st, bust1992 - Klingler (#6) - 2nd, bust1990 - George - 1st, bust1990 - Andre Ware (#7) - never, bust

This is kind of misleading. If you want something that shows an overall look, go to the draft history of HOF QBs. 14 of 25 QBs were first round picks (* I included Staubach because if it weren't for the Navy, he would have been a very high 1st round pick). Those numbers may be a bit off, but I think they are correct. Also, most of those 1st round picks were high first round picks.We go through this discussion all the time. If you look at almost every key position in the league, about half of the starters are 1st round picks, especially QBs.All that talk about it being better to draft QBs late and development them is usually based on a couple guys. Well, what are there, about 10, 15 QBs drafted every year and maybe 1-2 1st rounders and yet half of the starting QBs are 1st rounders. For every Schaub there are a bunch more 1st rounders McNabb, E. Manning, P. Manning, Roethlisberger, A. Smith, Palmer, Rivers, etc.Someone mentioned that 4 of the top 10 in QB ratings after week 1 were not with their original teams. Now, while this is a dumb stat that is about as weak a set of data to extrapolate, I will work with it. Let's flip it around and see that 11 QBs in week 1 have a 100 QB rating or more. Of those 11, 3 of them are #1 picks overall and 2 others are 1st round picks, all of who are still with the team that drafted them. So while the Pats found a gem in Brady, Panthers in Delhomme, etc., 5 of the teams just went with probably the guys who the pundits thought they should take.Personally, I am with a few people here that if you have a chance for a franchise QB, you pay them the $$$ and hope that they are. If they are, there is no surer way to ensure that your team is a contender. Any other position at the #1 overall spot, you are probably already paying a guy as if he is the best player at that position, so where is the upside? Sure, I would rather have LT than Vick, but there are just as many Caddies, Ronnie Browns and Bensons as there are Leafs, Couches and Carrs. Sure, plenty of QBs bust, but you have a much better shot at getting a Peyton Manning with the #1 overall pick than in the 6th round. Getting Reggie White did not get the Eagles to the Super Bowl, getting McNabb did.One more note about QBs that makes people think about franchise picks early in the draft is ctsu's list above. 5 of the 14 QBs taken in the 90s have played in a Super Bowl. It wouldn't surprise me to see some of the 2000s, like Eli, Palmer, VY, A. Smith, Leinart and Rivers appear in a Super Bowl down the road. Roethlisberger already has. That doesn't include the 80s where Marino, Elway, Steve Young, Aikman, Eason and maybe some others were 1st round QBs that led teams to Super Bowls as well and did better than their 90s counterparts. The 2000s QBs look to have some pretty good potential already.

 

[cstu]

Here's the list of all top 5 QB picks since 1990 (I added in the 6th and 7th picks were close enough to be nearly as expensive). Next to the name is the year they made a contribution (I used 200 pass attempts as the determining factor).Out of the 19 QB's (2004+ QB's excluded since it's too early to call) taken in top 7 only six became stars - Bledsoe, McNair, P. Manning, McNabb, Vick, and Palmer. If you only use the top 5 picks since all four 6th/7th picks were busts, that's still only 6 out of 15 (40%).

This is kind of misleading. If you want something that shows an overall look, go to the draft history of HOF QBs. 14 of 25 QBs were first round picks (* I included Staubach because if it weren't for the Navy, he would have been a very high 1st round pick). Those numbers may be a bit off, but I think they are correct. Also, most of those 1st round picks were high first round picks.We go through this discussion all the time. If you look at almost every key position in the league, about half of the starters are 1st round picks, especially QBs.All that talk about it being better to draft QBs late and development them is usually based on a couple guys. Well, what are there, about 10, 15 QBs drafted every year and maybe 1-2 1st rounders and yet half of the starting QBs are 1st rounders. For every Schaub there are a bunch more 1st rounders McNabb, E. Manning, P. Manning, Roethlisberger, A. Smith, Palmer, Rivers, etc.Someone mentioned that 4 of the top 10 in QB ratings after week 1 were not with their original teams. Now, while this is a dumb stat that is about as weak a set of data to extrapolate, I will work with it. Let's flip it around and see that 11 QBs in week 1 have a 100 QB rating or more. Of those 11, 3 of them are #1 picks overall and 2 others are 1st round picks, all of who are still with the team that drafted them. So while the Pats found a gem in Brady, Panthers in Delhomme, etc., 5 of the teams just went with probably the guys who the pundits thought they should take.Personally, I am with a few people here that if you have a chance for a franchise QB, you pay them the $$$ and hope that they are. If they are, there is no surer way to ensure that your team is a contender. Any other position at the #1 overall spot, you are probably already paying a guy as if he is the best player at that position, so where is the upside? Sure, I would rather have LT than Vick, but there are just as many Caddies, Ronnie Browns and Bensons as there are Leafs, Couches and Carrs. Sure, plenty of QBs bust, but you have a much better shot at getting a Peyton Manning with the #1 overall pick than in the 6th round. Getting Reggie White did not get the Eagles to the Super Bowl, getting McNabb did.One more note about QBs that makes people think about franchise picks early in the draft is ctsu's list above. 5 of the 14 QBs taken in the 90s have played in a Super Bowl. It wouldn't surprise me to see some of the 2000s, like Eli, Palmer, VY, A. Smith, Leinart and Rivers appear in a Super Bowl down the road. Roethlisberger already has. That doesn't include the 80s where Marino, Elway, Steve Young, Aikman, Eason and maybe some others were 1st round QBs that led teams to Super Bowls as well and did better than their 90s counterparts. The 2000s QBs look to have some pretty good potential already.

I wasn't making a statement on 1st round QB's, only those drafted in the top 5. Yes, there are plenty of good QB's drafted in the 1st round, but the cost is much less for the #20 pick (or the #10 pick for that matter) than it is for a top 5 pick. The top 5 picks are the ones who make or make your team because of the guaranteed money. Take for instance Vince Young (#3) with $26M guaranteed vs. Matt Leinart (#10) with $14M guaranteed. That's a big difference if a player is a bust.

 

[coolnerd]

If I were a GM with the #1 overall pick, I'd do everything I could to trade out of that spot. The money is too much for the risk of the pick busting and what it does to your salary cap.

The problem is finding a partner who wants to give up extra draftpicks/players all for the right to select a player who is just as risky.

I'd take less than "value" if I didn't go down too far (i.e. still got an elite player) yet could still save the money and get an extra pick or two. I would think multiple high picks, and by that I would include 2nd rounders, would be better to rebuild a team that's in position to draft #1 overall than having just the #1 overall would be.

You are only thinking from the stand point of the team moving down. Teams with a top 5 or so pick generally have the same problems, which will not be solved with one player. Even at "discount" price by the trade value chart, I would have little interest in giving up anything to put myself in the headache the holder of the number 1 is trying to trade out of. In fact, the way the system is set-up picks at the top portion of the 2nd round (generally able to get a 1st round valued player), could have more worth when you consider the cost of the player versus the skill of the player.

No, I am thinking about it. That's why I said "I'd do everything I could", but that doesn't include just giving away the pick. And it all depends on who the guy(s) are that are being considered for the #1 overall. If I knew a team in the top 5, for example, really wanted that DE at #1 and I already have a couple good ones, it might be easier to swing a deal.Really, I can't cover every scenario, but only can say that as a general rule of thumb, if the opportnity presented itself, I wouldn't hesitate to move out of that spot.

I don't think we disagree with moving out, I am just pretty down on the opportunity portion. With the salaries at the very top the chances are great that anybody in the top 3-5 picks in the draft are stuck there.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

This seriously just does not make any sense to me. It just doesn't. Russell is signed a contract for $60M+ with guarantees somewhere in the neighborhood of $30M. How many QBs have come into the league and contributed very positively their first year? How many have been great QBs in year 2? Year 3?It just boggles me mind that the Raiders are going to give Russell that much money to stand on the sidelines and hold a clipboard this year. And then they're going to pay him that much money to go in and look like a first year player next year. And then they're going to pay him that much money to go in and hopefully be halfway decent by Year 3. That's assuming that he's not a bust and it's all money down the drain. And honestly the worst thing that could happen to the Raiders is for Russell to be an average QB. Because then you're pretty much stuck paying him insane amounts of money every year, and chewing up huge amounts of cap space, through the entire 6 years of his contract.With the time that it usually takes a QB to develop and the amount of money that high first round picks get, I'm now convinced that taking a QB in the top 5 picks is a terrible idea. There are too many other players out there that can contribute right away and won't be wasted salary for 2 or 3 years. And since QBs take more time to develop than any other position, I think teams are better off taking some other team's castoff and working with him. In fact, I think that the Raiders almost definitely should have taken CJ and traded for either Culpepper or Carr. Yes, David Carr. I think that David Carr would have been a better option for the Raiders than JaMarcus Russell.

Year 1: Peyton Manning, Big Ben, Vince YoungYear 2: Drew Brees, Marc Bulger, Carson Palmer, Tom Brady, Donovan McNabb, Tony Romo, Eli Manning, Mike VickYear 3: Phillip Rivers, JP LosmanJury still out: Cutler (year 2), Leinart (year 2), Alex Smith (year 3)

Ryan LeafJoey HarringtonHeath ShulerDavid KlinglerAndre WareAkili Smith

I don't think your list answers the original posters question.

point

 

[stbugs]

The money paid to highly drafted QBs is insane, but the money paid to highly drafted RBs is even worse. They make just as much as the QB at a position where even the best players don't make anywhere NEAR as much money as the best QBs. JaMarcus Russell is probably one of the 5 highest paid RBs in the entire NFL, but he's not making more money than Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, or any of the other real stars. Reggie Bush, on the other hand, is making more than LaDanian Tomlinson.

But at least Adrian Peterson is making an immediate impact with MIN. Even if he is overpaid at least they are getting a high level of production out of him from game 1 on. With QB's you don't expect even above average production until late in year #2. That's two full years of throwing $ away and impacting your salary cap without getting much(or in the case of many... ANY) production out of all those salary cap $'s that could have been used to make your team better in so many other areas.

Adrian Peterson will not get Minny to the Super Bowl, just like LT hasn't yet. LT is the best RB in the NFL and maybe every NFL history and he has still not gotten to the Super Bowl. Why, because of Tom Brady and Peyton Manning. Sure there are Super Bowl winning teams without stud QBs, but there are far more with Elways, Staubachs, Bradshaws, Aikmans, Favres, Bradys, Mannings, Montanas, Steve Youngs, etc. Again, these QBs usually had good complements, sometimes the best RBs also, but Adrian Peterson will not get Minny to a Super Bowl with Tavaris Jackson unless their defense has an all time great year, i.e. 1985 Bears or 2000 Ravens type great.The point of the NFL is the Super Bowl. Nobody cares that a team was 6-10, then 7-9, and then 11-5 when another team goes 3-13, 5-11 and 12-4 and makes the Super Bowl in year three because that was when the QB finally hit his groove.Look at SSOG's team, the Broncos. If Denver has Terrell Davis with Trent Dilfer, do they win the Super Bowls? Absolutely not. On the other hand, while Elway hadn't won before TD, he DID make the Super Bowl without him. TD helped him win it, but TD without Elway is not in the Super Bowl.I wouldn't want to be the team taking Tim Couch, but I sure as hell don't want to be the team passing on Peyton Manning because Calvin Johnson is a stud WR. Unless Calvin Johnson is Jerry Rice reincarnated, he isn't worth more than Palmer, McNabb, P.Manning, etc. Even if you know he is Jerry Rice, I still wouldn't hesitate to take Peyton Manning over him and maybe even McNabb and Palmer.

 

[cstu]

The money paid to highly drafted QBs is insane, but the money paid to highly drafted RBs is even worse. They make just as much as the QB at a position where even the best players don't make anywhere NEAR as much money as the best QBs. JaMarcus Russell is probably one of the 5 highest paid RBs in the entire NFL, but he's not making more money than Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, or any of the other real stars. Reggie Bush, on the other hand, is making more than LaDanian Tomlinson.

But at least Adrian Peterson is making an immediate impact with MIN. Even if he is overpaid at least they are getting a high level of production out of him from game 1 on. With QB's you don't expect even above average production until late in year #2. That's two full years of throwing $ away and impacting your salary cap without getting much(or in the case of many... ANY) production out of all those salary cap $'s that could have been used to make your team better in so many other areas.

Adrian Peterson will not get Minny to the Super Bowl, just like LT hasn't yet. LT is the best RB in the NFL and maybe every NFL history and he has still not gotten to the Super Bowl. Why, because of Tom Brady and Peyton Manning. Sure there are Super Bowl winning teams without stud QBs, but there are far more with Elways, Staubachs, Bradshaws, Aikmans, Favres, Bradys, Mannings, Montanas, Steve Youngs, etc. Again, these QBs usually had good complements, sometimes the best RBs also, but Adrian Peterson will not get Minny to a Super Bowl with Tavaris Jackson unless their defense has an all time great year, i.e. 1985 Bears or 2000 Ravens type great.The point of the NFL is the Super Bowl. Nobody cares that a team was 6-10, then 7-9, and then 11-5 when another team goes 3-13, 5-11 and 12-4 and makes the Super Bowl in year three because that was when the QB finally hit his groove.Look at SSOG's team, the Broncos. If Denver has Terrell Davis with Trent Dilfer, do they win the Super Bowls? Absolutely not. On the other hand, while Elway hadn't won before TD, he DID make the Super Bowl without him. TD helped him win it, but TD without Elway is not in the Super Bowl.I wouldn't want to be the team taking Tim Couch, but I sure as hell don't want to be the team passing on Peyton Manning because Calvin Johnson is a stud WR. Unless Calvin Johnson is Jerry Rice reincarnated, he isn't worth more than Palmer, McNabb, P.Manning, etc. Even if you know he is Jerry Rice, I still wouldn't hesitate to take Peyton Manning over him and maybe even McNabb and Palmer.

Since 2000, here are the draft positions of the winning SB QB's: 1.01, 1.11, 6.33, 6.33, 9.3*, 6.33, 1.06*, UDFA. *QB won SB on a different team that the one that drafted him.If winning the SB is only goal, then only one team has had it's top 5 pick used on a QB pay off.

 

[CalBear]

Since 2000, here are the draft positions of the winning SB QB's: 1.01, 1.11, 6.33, 6.33, 9.3*, 6.33, 1.06*, UDFA. *QB won SB on a different team that the one that drafted him.If winning the SB is only goal, then only one team has had it's top 5 pick used on a QB pay off.

Since 2000, here are the draft positions of the winning SB RB's: 1.02*, 1.05, 1.23*, 4.02*, 1.23*, 2.09*, UDFA, 1.30If winning the SB is the only goal, then only one team has had its top 5 pick used on a RB pay off.Your criteria are simply too restrictive.

 

[SSOG]

The money paid to highly drafted QBs is insane, but the money paid to highly drafted RBs is even worse. They make just as much as the QB at a position where even the best players don't make anywhere NEAR as much money as the best QBs. JaMarcus Russell is probably one of the 5 highest paid RBs in the entire NFL, but he's not making more money than Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, or any of the other real stars. Reggie Bush, on the other hand, is making more than LaDanian Tomlinson.

But at least Adrian Peterson is making an immediate impact with MIN. Even if he is overpaid at least they are getting a high level of production out of him from game 1 on. With QB's you don't expect even above average production until late in year #2. That's two full years of throwing $ away and impacting your salary cap without getting much(or in the case of many... ANY) production out of all those salary cap $'s that could have been used to make your team better in so many other areas.

If you're drafting in the top-5, the odds of you being competitive this season are ridiculously slim, anyway, and if you do become competitive, I doubt your rookie had that much to do with it (both of the most recent top-5 drafters to become powerhouse franchises in a single season have Drew Brees to thank for their success far more than their prized rookie).

Since 2000, here are the draft positions of the winning SB QB's: 1.01, 1.11, 6.33, 6.33, 9.3*, 6.33, 1.06*, UDFA. *QB won SB on a different team that the one that drafted him.If winning the SB is only goal, then only one team has had it's top 5 pick used on a QB pay off.

Since 2000, there have been 6 different QBs to win a superbowl. Three were taken in the first 11 picks, and 3 were not. Now, all of those QBs were drafted sometime between 1994 and 2004. Do you know how many QBs were taken in the top 11 between 1994 and 2004? 18. That's 18 QBs drafted, 3 of which won the superbowl, or a 17% success rate.Do you know how many QBs were drafted OUTSIDE of the top 11 during that span? 106, and THIS ISN'T COUNTING UFAs! That's 3 out of those 106+ QBs who won the superbowl, or a 3% success rate (more like a 2% success rate when you consider UFAs, too). In other words, your odds of finding a SB-winning QB would be as good if you spent a single top-11 pick on the position as they would if you spent the entire rest of your draft and free agent class on the position (2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and two undrafted free agents).Hey, no QB drafted from 47th to 52nd won the superbowl during that span, so drafting a QB in that 5-pick range must be a bad idea, too! And how many top-5 defensive ends, RBs, WRs, or LBs wound up winning the superbowl, too, while we're at it? Perhaps the best course of action if you have a top-5 pick is to just not excercise the pick, because the odds of whoever you draft ever winning the SB for you are ridiculously slim, regardless of what position they play. Maybe that's why you're drafting in the top 5 in the first place!

 

[Chaka]

Since 2000, here are the draft positions of the winning SB QB's: 1.01, 1.11, 6.33, 6.33, 9.3*, 6.33, 1.06*, UDFA. *QB won SB on a different team that the one that drafted him.If winning the SB is only goal, then only one team has had it's top 5 pick used on a QB pay off.

Since 2000, here are the draft positions of the winning SB RB's: 1.02*, 1.05, 1.23*, 4.02*, 1.23*, 2.09*, UDFA, 1.30If winning the SB is the only goal, then only one team has had its top 5 pick used on a RB pay off.Your criteria are simply too restrictive.

Apologies for being obtuse but do either of you have a point? (ETA: This applies to most in this thread actually).It takes a team to win a Super Bowl.