Ridiculous money spent on first round QBs (1 Viewer)

[SSOG]

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.

I believe cstu's point is that it's stupid to spend a top-5 pick on a QB since that player is unlikely to ever win a superbowl. CalBear countered by pointing out how flawed that analysis is- by the same token, it would be stupid to spend a top-5 pick on ANY position, since no player picked in the top 5 is ever likely to win the superbowl (both since being picked in the top 5 generally means going to a terrible franchise, and because logically speaking, if all other things being equal, top-5 picks would only have a 5/32 chance of winning a SB in any given season).I believe that some people are trying to make the point that half of the successful QBs come from outside of the high picks, so it's silly to spend a high pick on a QB, and their high salary is totally unjustified. My response to that is that there are a lot more QBs picked low than there are QBs picked high, so any comparison should begin and end with SUCCESS RATE. High QBs might not have the greatest success rate, but it's a hell of a lot better than the success rate of low QBs. To that end, their high salary is at least partially justified.

 

[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.

I believe cstu's point is that it's stupid to spend a top-5 pick on a QB since that player is unlikely to ever win a superbowl. CalBear countered by pointing out how flawed that analysis is- by the same token, it would be stupid to spend a top-5 pick on ANY position, since no player picked in the top 5 is ever likely to win the superbowl (both since being picked in the top 5 generally means going to a terrible franchise, and because logically speaking, if all other things being equal, top-5 picks would only have a 5/32 chance of winning a SB in any given season).I believe that some people are trying to make the point that half of the successful QBs come from outside of the high picks, so it's silly to spend a high pick on a QB, and their high salary is totally unjustified. My response to that is that there are a lot more QBs picked low than there are QBs picked high, so any comparison should begin and end with SUCCESS RATE. High QBs might not have the greatest success rate, but it's a hell of a lot better than the success rate of low QBs. To that end, their high salary is at least partially justified.

I understand their points SSOG, and yours is even more clearly defined however it doesn't change the fact that a #1 pick at any position isn't going to carry a team to the Super Bowl. I am guessing the data would support that conclusion too.The rookie pay scale is off the charts relative to the production they provide. One player does not make a Super Bowl Championship team. For goodness sakes there are 53 players on the roster plus the scout team. Factor in breaks from good bounces or bad calls from the refs, something th Pats may have reason to complain about after last season's AFC championship game, or the Raiders a few years ago (IT WAS A FUMBLE!!!), and it becomes even more clear to me that it takes a team + a little luck and not an individual player. This isn't the NBA.

 

[cstu]

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.

I believe cstu's point is that it's stupid to spend a top-5 pick on a QB since that player is unlikely to ever win a superbowl. CalBear countered by pointing out how flawed that analysis is- by the same token, it would be stupid to spend a top-5 pick on ANY position, since no player picked in the top 5 is ever likely to win the superbowl (both since being picked in the top 5 generally means going to a terrible franchise, and because logically speaking, if all other things being equal, top-5 picks would only have a 5/32 chance of winning a SB in any given season).I believe that some people are trying to make the point that half of the successful QBs come from outside of the high picks, so it's silly to spend a high pick on a QB, and their high salary is totally unjustified. My response to that is that there are a lot more QBs picked low than there are QBs picked high, so any comparison should begin and end with SUCCESS RATE. High QBs might not have the greatest success rate, but it's a hell of a lot better than the success rate of low QBs. To that end, their high salary is at least partially justified.

I understand their points SSOG, and yours is even more clearly defined however it doesn't change the fact that a #1 pick at any position isn't going to carry a team to the Super Bowl. I am guessing the data would support that conclusion too.The rookie pay scale is off the charts relative to the production they provide. One player does not make a Super Bowl Championship team. For goodness sakes there are 53 players on the roster plus the scout team. Factor in breaks from good bounces or bad calls from the refs, something th Pats may have reason to complain about after last season's AFC championship game, or the Raiders a few years ago (IT WAS A FUMBLE!!!), and it becomes even more clear to me that it takes a team + a little luck and not an individual player. This isn't the NBA.

I think we're in agreement. The argument of this thread is that QB is a poor use of a top 5 pick for several reasons - 1) huge guaranteed money for QB's in particular, 2) long development time and 3) a team drafting top 5 has many more needs than QB.I focused on the top 5 picks because there is a big drop-off in guaranteed money after the top picks. About half of the leagues starting QB's were 1st round picks but the teams that draft QB's later in the 1st can cut their losses easier that a top 5 QB.

 

[SSOG]

I think we're in agreement. The argument of this thread is that QB is a poor use of a top 5 pick for several reasons - 1) huge guaranteed money for QB's in particular, 2) long development time and 3) a team drafting top 5 has many more needs than QB.I focused on the top 5 picks because there is a big drop-off in guaranteed money after the top picks. About half of the leagues starting QB's were 1st round picks but the teams that draft QB's later in the 1st can cut their losses easier that a top 5 QB.

Top-5 picks all pretty much make the same amount of money, regardless of position they play. In that respect, it's BEST to take a QB top-5, because at least then you're spending big money at a big-money position rather than spending big-money at a position where you could find a much cheaper alternative via free agency (which would totally wreck your salary cap).As an example, imagine that all stud QBs cost $50 million dollars and all stud RBs cost $5 million, while all top-5 draft picks make $75 million. If you drafted a top-5 QB and paired him with a stud RB, that'd be $80 million of cap space. If you drafted a top-5 RB and paired him with a stud QB, you're looking at a $125 million price tag. Obviously this is an extreme example, but the point stands- if you're going to blow big money on a player, you're better served blowing it on a player at a big-money position.

 

[cstu]

I think we're in agreement. The argument of this thread is that QB is a poor use of a top 5 pick for several reasons - 1) huge guaranteed money for QB's in particular, 2) long development time and 3) a team drafting top 5 has many more needs than QB.I focused on the top 5 picks because there is a big drop-off in guaranteed money after the top picks. About half of the leagues starting QB's were 1st round picks but the teams that draft QB's later in the 1st can cut their losses easier that a top 5 QB.

Top-5 picks all pretty much make the same amount of money, regardless of position they play. In that respect, it's BEST to take a QB top-5, because at least then you're spending big money at a big-money position rather than spending big-money at a position where you could find a much cheaper alternative via free agency (which would totally wreck your salary cap).As an example, imagine that all stud QBs cost $50 million dollars and all stud RBs cost $5 million, while all top-5 draft picks make $75 million. If you drafted a top-5 QB and paired him with a stud RB, that'd be $80 million of cap space. If you drafted a top-5 RB and paired him with a stud QB, you're looking at a $125 million price tag. Obviously this is an extreme example, but the point stands- if you're going to blow big money on a player, you're better served blowing it on a player at a big-money position.

They make roughly the same amount of money but the difference between a QB and say a RB is that you don't have to wait a couple years for your RB to develop. The payout on a RB is usually immediate, like Peterson, compared to QB's. I do see your point, however there are good QB's teams can get for much less money. Case in point is the Texans trade for Schaub. They only swapped 1sts and signed him to a long-term deal with only $7M guaranteed.

 

[SSOG]

I think we're in agreement. The argument of this thread is that QB is a poor use of a top 5 pick for several reasons - 1) huge guaranteed money for QB's in particular, 2) long development time and 3) a team drafting top 5 has many more needs than QB.I focused on the top 5 picks because there is a big drop-off in guaranteed money after the top picks. About half of the leagues starting QB's were 1st round picks but the teams that draft QB's later in the 1st can cut their losses easier that a top 5 QB.

Top-5 picks all pretty much make the same amount of money, regardless of position they play. In that respect, it's BEST to take a QB top-5, because at least then you're spending big money at a big-money position rather than spending big-money at a position where you could find a much cheaper alternative via free agency (which would totally wreck your salary cap).As an example, imagine that all stud QBs cost $50 million dollars and all stud RBs cost $5 million, while all top-5 draft picks make $75 million. If you drafted a top-5 QB and paired him with a stud RB, that'd be $80 million of cap space. If you drafted a top-5 RB and paired him with a stud QB, you're looking at a $125 million price tag. Obviously this is an extreme example, but the point stands- if you're going to blow big money on a player, you're better served blowing it on a player at a big-money position.

They make roughly the same amount of money but the difference between a QB and say a RB is that you don't have to wait a couple years for your RB to develop. The payout on a RB is usually immediate, like Peterson, compared to QB's. I do see your point, however there are good QB's teams can get for much less money. Case in point is the Texans trade for Schaub. They only swapped 1sts and signed him to a long-term deal with only $7M guaranteed.

They didn't "only swap firsts", Houston also gave up a pair of 2nd round picks (one in 2007 and one in 2008, and the 2007 one was 39th overall, which is basically a late first rounder). In addition, Schaub was a guy with a 52% comp% and a 6:6 TD:INT ratio when Houston traded for him, so the jury's still out on whether he'll be a bust or not. Essentially, in terms of cost in draft value and cost in contract, trading for Schaub would be roughly equivalent to drafting a QB somewhere around the 16th pick.