Teams with bad QB's should reach for QB's regardless (1 Viewer)

[shader]

In today's NFL, you can't win without a QB. Why are the Packers going to be in the playoffs for the next ten years? Rodgers. Why are the Colts and Patriots always in the playoffs? Blah, blah, blah, we all know the importance of QB.

If you have a terrible QB situation, like Arizona...you just have to get a QB. I don't see how you can pass one up? Same with San Fran, Tennessee, Washington, etc. That's why Gosselin's final draft has 5 QB's in the first 12 picks. GM's are finally figuring it out.

Let's analyze why:

If I draft a DT in the first round he might be awesome, and he might bust. If he's awesome, than that's good, but doesn't assure me of anything other than having a much stronger Dline for awhile. While that is good, how many DT's dramatically reversed their team's fortune? Suh is one of the best rookie DT's in history, and did have a big impact...but he's 1 in 100.

Same with CB, WR, RB, etc. Even if the player works out, it doesn't make the team a winner automatically.

But if you get a great QB, than you are set for ten years.

If you are a team with a horrible qb situation, I just don't see how you can pass on one. The only thing that MIGHT make a difference this year, is if there are handshake deals for Orton, Kolb, McNabb or Palmer, and this causes a team to risk that they'll get a vet instead of drafting a young QB.

But usually a stud QB is going to be of far more importance than a stud at any other position. So if you are short at that position, you absolutely must address it, which is what I believe will happen tonight.

 

[mlball77]

There have been so many good QBs taken outside of RD 1 (Brady, Brees, Warner, Romo, etc.), it makes it tough to say you have to draft one early in order to end up with a very good/great QB.

Having a good QB is critical if being a perennial playoff team, but how much does drafting one in the first round improve your odds of landing a good/great one? And is the presumed increased success rate of finding a very good QB in Rd 1 vs other rounds worth passing on the other player you'd consider? And is the presumed increased success rate of finding a very good QB in Rd 1 vs other rounds worth gambling on given the fact that if you take a first rd QB (particularly a very early one), you'll be obligated to play him soon and give him multiple opportunities even if he is not proving worthy (hurting you for a couple/few years)?

I guess what I'm saying is, it's complex, imo.

I would think that if a team's talent evaluators and front office have a strong positive feeling about a particular QB, it makes sense to grab him in the draft, even if they have to do it a bit earlier than they'd like; since QB is so important. Reaching a bit for a QB you really like is not such a bad thing, imo. But if a team's talent evaluators and front office don't have a QB or two that they are very high on, they shouldn't scramble and take one early just because it's an area of need. That sort of behavior seems destined to doom the team to years of failure.

 

[shader]

There have been so many good QBs taken outside of RD 1 (Brady, Brees, Warner, Romo, etc.), it makes it tough to say you have to draft one early in order to end up with a very good/great QB. Having a good QB is critical if being a perennial playoff team, but how much does drafting one in the first round improve your odds of landing a good/great one? And is the presumed increased success rate of finding a very good QB in Rd 1 vs other rounds worth passing on the other player you'd consider? And is the presumed increased success rate of finding a very good QB in Rd 1 vs other rounds worth gambling on given the fact that if you take a first rd QB (particularly a very early one), you'll be obligated to play him soon and give him multiple opportunities even if he is not proving worthy (hurting you for a couple/few years)?I guess what I'm saying is, it's complex, imo.I would think that if a team's talent evaluators and front office have a strong positive feeling about a particular QB, it makes sense to grab him in the draft, even if they have to do it a bit earlier than they'd like; since QB is so important. Reaching a bit for a QB you really like is not such a bad thing, imo. But if a team's talent evaluators and front office don't have a QB or two that they are very high on, they shouldn't scramble and take one early just because it's an area of need. That sort of behavior seems destined to doom the team to years of failure.

I agree that there have, but the bust rate after the first round goes down bigtime.I do agree that if a team doesn't LIKE the QB than they shouldn't reach...but if it's a QB that they like and are HOPING to get in the next round, they might as well pull the trigger. QB is that important of a position.

 

[Cassius]

Trying to turn around your franchise with one pick at the expense of better players at other positions is risky. It's been working out lately with teams drafting at 1.01, but those guys (Bradford, Ryan, Stafford) were still top quality prospects anyways. Newton is different.

 

[I was in the pool]

I understand the importance of a QB in the team - it's the difference between having a decent chance every single year, and basically not having a real shot no matter what - but that need and search should be calculated.

A lot of talking heads have been saying this draft season that a lot of these teams need to be drafting one early because they are lacking and it is so important.

I disagree with that entirely. Yes, a bad team can get better right away with the right QB, but the odds are against them. The team is bad for a reason and it's not just the quarterback position. In addition there are very few quarterbacks coming out of college that can handle coming into a bad situation, starting right away (anytime in their first season) and succeed to the point that they remain the QB for the foreseeable future and the team builds on that as a franchise.

That being said, there are no quarterbacks like that in this draft. Pick one of them - if they go to a bad team with the pressure to start right away and turn the offense and franchise around - they will fail. Quarterbacks need some help - a defense, a running game, receivers need to help them out, etc. Matt Ryan had a good running game when he arrived in Atlanta. Joe Flacco had the running game and defense in Baltimore - ditto for Mark Sanchez.

A message for all these teams that draft a 2nd round or later "talent level" quarterback in the 1st round tonight - Don't! Evaluate the player and person and draft them where they fall on your board. Let the other teams over-draft at a position that sets you back if you are wrong more than any other. I think the most successful QBs in the draft this year will be ones drafted later because of the reduced pressure to start right away and being able to learn behind a more established guy initially. I think Ponder is a good candidate to succeed based on that criteria if he goes in the 2nd round or later.

All that being said, when there is a guy that has it all (Peyton Manning, Bradford, etc.) and is a top-5 pick (and justifiably so) - trade what it takes to get them. I don't care if it's your whole draft class - get the guy. The odds are a lot higher that that guy succeeds than your average "best in a particular class" QB that will get overdrafted. If a team waits until they crater and have a top pick to take "the guy", you will leave it up to luck if that class has a top guy.

I say if you are Carolina, Buffalo, Tennessee, San Francisco, Arizona, Minnesota, Cincinnati, etc. and want a QB, trade down this year to pick up a 2012 pick (or pick the BPA at another position where you are) then make the trade to get Andrew Luck in 2012. I am not an NFL scout, but he seems to have the goods as a franchise guy. Everyone is in a rush to get a franchise guy ASAP. They aren't always around the moment you need them. That's like being in a rookie draft for dynasty and really needing a certain position. If you have a top pick this year and really need a QB, why would you take one if they are all 2nd round guys? That's like taking Cam Newton 1.1 in your rookie draft because you really need a QB. Just because you need one doesn't mean the ones available are the ones you should go after, or go after in that spot.

Thoughts?

 

[Ilov80s]

In today's NFL, you can't win without a QB. Why are the Packers going to be in the playoffs for the next ten years? Rodgers. Why are the Colts and Patriots always in the playoffs? Blah, blah, blah, we all know the importance of QB.If you have a terrible QB situation, like Arizona...you just have to get a QB. I don't see how you can pass one up? Same with San Fran, Tennessee, Washington, etc. That's why Gosselin's final draft has 5 QB's in the first 12 picks. GM's are finally figuring it out.Let's analyze why:If I draft a DT in the first round he might be awesome, and he might bust. If he's awesome, than that's good, but doesn't assure me of anything other than having a much stronger Dline for awhile. While that is good, how many DT's dramatically reversed their team's fortune? Suh is one of the best rookie DT's in history, and did have a big impact...but he's 1 in 100.Same with CB, WR, RB, etc. Even if the player works out, it doesn't make the team a winner automatically. But if you get a great QB, than you are set for ten years.If you are a team with a horrible qb situation, I just don't see how you can pass on one. The only thing that MIGHT make a difference this year, is if there are handshake deals for Orton, Kolb, McNabb or Palmer, and this causes a team to risk that they'll get a vet instead of drafting a young QB.But usually a stud QB is going to be of far more importance than a stud at any other position. So if you are short at that position, you absolutely must address it, which is what I believe will happen tonight.

How many of those playoff teams reached for their QB? Looking at the playoff QBs, most were either late picks or top 10 talent guys who were graded higher than any of this year's class.

 

[Kleck]

There are some QBs that are far more gifted than others, but some coaches are also far better at getting their QBs up to the level of leading their teams to multiple playoff appearances. If Rodgers retired today, I have total faith in McCarthy to get Flynn ready to lead the Packers back to the playoffs in 2011 and beyond.

 

[Couch Potato]

Looking at Fear & Loathing's current dynasty QBs as a quick and dirty "success" list, here are the top 16 QBs, team, year, round/pick. Evaluate it as you wish.

Rodgers, Aaron GB Q-05 R1/24

Rivers, Philip SD Q-04 R1/04

Brees, Drew NO Q-01 R2/32

Manning, Peyton IND Q-.98 R1/01

Brady, Tom NE Q-00 R6/199

Vick, Michael PHI Q-01 R1/01

Romo, Tony DAL Q-03 UDFA

Roethlisberger, Ben PIT Q-04 R1/11

Ryan, Matt ATL Q-08 R1/03

Flacco, Joe BAL Q-08 R1/18

Bradford, Sam STL Q-10 R1/01

Freeman, Josh TB Q-09 R1/17

Schaub, Matt HOU Q-04 R3/90

Manning, Eli NYG Q-04 R1/01

Tebow, Tim DEN Q-10 R1/25

Stafford, Matthew DET Q-09 R1/01

 

[Donnybrook]

"Teams with bad QB's should reach for QB's regardless"

Didn't Teams do that in 2007? Oakland took Jamarus Russel, Browns took Brady Quinn, and Miami took Jon Beck. Enough said.

 

[ZWK]

The problem is that there's only about 1 elite QB per draft, on average, plus another 1 or 2 who turn out okay. The rest are worthless. If a team keeps using its first pick reaching on mediocre quarterbacks, hoping to get lucky, then the team is just going to get crappier and crappier.

 

[Johnny Rock]

I disagree that teams should reach for QB. Taking BPA is always a solid strategy and teams must still think long term despite not starting free agency or player trading yet.

Taking a 2nd Rd QB talent in the early to mid first, despite what the Goose is saying, doesn't make sense to me and doesn't seem like a winning strategy. Five QBs in the Top 12 in Rd 1 seems like a major panic to me and I don't see it happening.

That said, I hope the Vikings get Locker.

 

[mr roboto]

I disagree that teams should reach for QB. Taking BPA is always a solid strategy and teams must still think long term despite not starting free agency or player trading yet.

Taking a 2nd Rd QB talent in the early to mid first, despite what the Goose is saying, doesn't make sense to me and doesn't seem like a winning strategy. Five QBs in the Top 12 in Rd 1 seems like a major panic to me and I don't see it happening.

That said, I hope the Vikings get Locker.

Nope. I swear Chilly is still there in MN. Pisses me off.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

"If you win the lottery, you are set for life. Therefore you should not invest in mutual funds."

 

[Ilov80s]

Minnesota just reached for Ponder and let the Lions grab Fairley. That is exactly why you don't reach for a QB. I would have been nervous for Stafford if the Vikes got Fairley.

 

[Assani Fisher]

I think that, on average, NFL teams draft fairly optimally. Obviously the draft is a crapshoot and people can point to quite a few bad moves for every team, but overall they've got things figured out pretty well by now. Especially in today's internet age, GMs/front offices are getting better and better. I think the appropriate amount of weight is given to the importance of QB when drafting. No argument posted in this thread so far has convinced me that they need to make any adjustments regarding this.

 

[Mister CIA]

In today's NFL, you can't win without a QB. Why are the Packers going to be in the playoffs for the next ten years? Rodgers. Why are the Colts and Patriots always in the playoffs? Blah, blah, blah, we all know the importance of QB.

If you have a terrible QB situation, like Arizona...you just have to get a QB. I don't see how you can pass one up? Same with San Fran, Tennessee, Washington, etc. That's why Gosselin's final draft has 5 QB's in the first 12 picks. GM's are finally figuring it out.

Let's analyze why:

If I draft a DT in the first round he might be awesome, and he might bust. If he's awesome, than that's good, but doesn't assure me of anything other than having a much stronger Dline for awhile. While that is good, how many DT's dramatically reversed their team's fortune? Suh is one of the best rookie DT's in history, and did have a big impact...but he's 1 in 100.

Same with CB, WR, RB, etc. Even if the player works out, it doesn't make the team a winner automatically.

But if you get a great QB, than you are set for ten years.

If you are a team with a horrible qb situation, I just don't see how you can pass on one. The only thing that MIGHT make a difference this year, is if there are handshake deals for Orton, Kolb, McNabb or Palmer, and this causes a team to risk that they'll get a vet instead of drafting a young QB.

But usually a stud QB is going to be of far more importance than a stud at any other position. So if you are short at that position, you absolutely must address it, which is what I believe will happen tonight.

Bolded above where your argument jumped the track. Just to prove my point, I'm a quarterback.