To Those Banking On Another Brady

[Laxpunk2006]

A good Offensive line makes an average QB look great. See Mark Sanchez.

Sanchez won a lot but I don't recall him ever looking great.

[Pedro]

See Vince Young for another QB who if not a high pick would be out of the league. High draft picks get much more of an opportunity in the NFL. People lose jobs if high picks bust.

[NewCliche21]

A lot of people in this thread can't read or follow logic.

The point of this thread: It is much more likely to find an elite quarterback (or anyone at any position) in the first round than it is in the others. I don't see how that's debateable.

You people are making it out to seem like fantastic players are regularly found in the fourth or lower rounds. If that were true, then why don't we, and every other team who has a staff of dozens, trade away their first round picks every single year?

[NewCliche21]

Very nice post Looking For Number Four

Seems to be his M.O. It's nice to have a quality poster on the board again.

[Pedro]

A lot of people in this thread can't read or follow logic.

The point of this thread: It is much more likely to find an elite quarterback (or anyone at any position) in the first round than it is in the others. I don't see how that's debateable.

You people are making it out to seem like fantastic players are regularly found in the fourth or lower rounds. If that were true, then why don't we, and every other team who has a staff of dozens, trade away their first round picks every single year?

'Cos 1st round picks get a few seasons of game time to actually produce. How many starts do you think JaMarcus Russell would have (even with Al) if he was a 4th round pick?

I'm not saying we shouldn't draft a QB 4th overall, if there's a guy our FO thinks is a real top 5 QB then of course we should. But to suggest draft position doesn't play a significant role re: reps and game time regardless of actual performance is flat wrong.

If it was as simple as trading up and picking the top QB of a given year it would happen every year. It doesn't because it isn't.

The whole debate is tomato/tomato.

[Jeff in D.C.]

Shuler was Peyton's backup!

:laugh:

Actually I think Peyton's first year there was 94, Heath's last season was 93. So Peyton followed him but he wasn't his backup.

Why couldn't Peyton have been 4 years older.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Actually I think Peyton's first year there was 94, Heath's last season was 93. So Peyton followed him but he wasn't his backup.

Why couldn't Peyton have been 4 years older.

Because then we'd have taken Trent Dilfer.

[scruffylookin]

Why do people still refer to Brady as Griese's backup as if that is all he did in college?

Yeah he backed him up his first two years (like most college QBs) but he was a starter his junior and senior seasons at Michigan. In fact he beat out highly touted and presumptive starting QB Drew Henson.

Might as well call Matt Ryan Quinton Porter's backup or Peyton Manning Todd Helton's and Jerry Colquitt's backup at Tennessee.

[NewCliche21]

'Cos 1st round picks get a few seasons of game time to actually produce. How many starts do you think JaMarcus Russell would have (even with Al) if he was a 4th round pick?

I'm not saying we shouldn't draft a QB 4th overall, if there's a guy our FO thinks is a real top 5 QB then of course we should. But to suggest draft position doesn't play a significant role re: reps and game time regardless of actual performance is flat wrong.

If it was as simple as trading up and picking the top QB of a given year it would happen every year. It doesn't because it isn't.

The whole debate is tomato/tomato.

They don't always. Look at Quinn. He was done before he started for a reason. Russell wasn't given much of a shot past his first season, either.

People earn their reps based on their draft position, sure. However, they also earn their draft position based on their talent and performance. That goes for EVERY position.

The best players are picked first the majority of the time. I don't see how that's up for discussion.

[Jeff in D.C.]

In response to the OP, we already have a 1st round QB. :paranoid:

The draft is always a calculated risk. The reason there have been so many busts in the 1st round is because GM's have done a poor job of scouting and taken certain players higher than they should have been. I can see though the methodology in taking one in the 1st round - you have to play the percentages and take a chance on a QB that could be a stud, even if there's the risk he'll be a bust, just because you know that percentage wise you have to have a 1st rounder. There's a reason why more 1st round QB's both pan out and bust, because many more are taken in the 1st round than any other round.

You have to take the QB that has the best overall skills & pedigree, not just take one for the hell of it. For example, if not for Bradford & Clausen, many could argue that someone like Dan Lefevour would sneak into the 1st round. Well Lefevour is going to be the same player in the NFL no matter what round he's drafted in.

The dumbest argument anyone can make is that "well QB x wasn't a 1st round pick, so he has virtually no chance of winning a SB."

[Pedro]

The best players are picked first the majority of the time. I don't see how that's up for discussion.

Of course they are but in general high pick QBs get a much better opportunity to stick in the NFL than any other position.

The whole statistics thing is bunk. If there's a top 5 QB, in the opinion of the FO of a team with QB needs, it's a no brainer (styles etc fitting well). If those same opinions are that there isn't it's also a no brainer to not pick a QB for the sake of it, regardless of stats.

For the stat obsessed when was the last time our team hit on a straight out of the gate superstar QB? That of course is just another stat that has no bearing on what we actually do in the draft.

[Coolio47]

I'm just not sold on taking a QB with the 4th overall pick, as none of the QB's look that appealing. I'd rather take an O-lineman with the 4th pick OR I could also see us possible trading down for more picks in the late 1st/early 2nd rounds so we could get both a O-Lineman and QB. Maybe...

[NewCliche21]

In response to the OP, we already have a 1st round QB. :paranoid:

So do the Colts.

Of course they are but in general high pick QBs get a much better opportunity to stick in the NFL than any other position.

The whole statistics thing is bunk. If there's a top 5 QB, in the opinion of the FO of a team with QB needs, it's a no brainer (styles etc fitting well). If those same opinions are that there isn't it's also a no brainer to not pick a QB for the sake of it, regardless of stats.

For the stat obsessed when was the last time our team hit on a straight out of the gate superstar QB? That of course is just another stat that has no bearing on what we actually do in the draft.

When was the last time that this management team picked a first-round quarterback?

[Jeff in D.C.]

Why do people still refer to Brady as Griese's backup as if that is all he did in college?

I think just because it's ironic that Brady was a backup to a scrub like Griese at any point.

[John Lydon]

A lot of people in this thread can't read or follow logic.

The point of this thread: It is much more likely to find an elite quarterback (or anyone at any position) in the first round than it is in the others. I don't see how that's debateable.

For other teams that may be true, not so much for the Redskins. In the 74 years of the draft, the Redskins have chosen a QB in the first round 12 times. All, save for Sammy Baugh, were busts. I could list all their names but I don't think thats neccessary. Why would I believe that a franchise that's hits one time on the QB spot in the last 74 years has suddenly got it figured out?

For the record, I can read. Just finished Judy Bloom's Super Fudge last week. Didn't understand some of it, but finished it none the less.

[Pedro]

When was the last time that this management team picked a first-round quarterback?

Hasn't mattered who has been picking them for us. Doesn't matter who has been picking QBs for other teams either.

The stats people use to suggest we should pick a QB in the first round aren't a factor in the actual drafting process. That's why teams have scouts and such like, to actually look at players and then make a decision based on the player rather than a piece of paper.

Our last FO probably looked at stats and tea leaves etc but we have football people in charge now

[Koolblue13]

Wait, wait, wait. #4, are you trying to say that the most talented prospects usually get drafted high in the 1rst round? And the occasionally, some teams will miss on a guy and he'll drop later and surprise everybody?

Consider my mind blown. Great thread. Thank you. Please continue starting them, so your observations don't go unnoticed.

[NewCliche21]

For other teams that may be true, not so much for the Redskins. In the 74 years of the draft, the Redskins have chosen a QB in the first round 12 times. All, save for Sammy Baugh, were busts. I could list all their names but I don't think thats neccessary. Why would I believe that a franchise that's hits one time on the QB spot in the last 74 years has suddenly got it figured out?

For the record, I can read. Just finished Judy Bloom's Super Fudge last week. Didn't understand some of it, but finished it none the less.

The reading thing was a joke.

However, your draft pick history must be a joke, too. You're basing your argument on this draft on some sort of "curse" that we just can't do it?

Hasn't mattered who has been picking them for us. Doesn't matter who has been picking QBs for other teams either.

The stats people use to suggest we should pick a QB in the first round aren't a factor in the actual drafting process. That's why teams have scouts and such like, to actually look at players and then make a decision based on the player rather than a piece of paper.

Our last FO probably looked at stats and tea leaves etc but we have football people in charge now

Sigh. See above, but I like your last sentence.

[NewCliche21]

Wait, wait, wait. #4, are you trying to say that the most talented prospects usually get drafted high in the 1rst round? And the occasionally, some teams will miss on a guy and he'll drop later and surprise everybody?

Consider my mind blown. Great thread. Thank you. Please continue starting them, so your observations don't go unnoticed.

Why do you have to be such an ass? This guy starts great threads all of the time.

And if you'd bother to read the thread, there's actually been a good discussion. Instead of being a :jerk: you might want to read more.

[TheLongshot]

A lot of people in this thread can't read or follow logic.

The point of this thread: It is much more likely to find an elite quarterback (or anyone at any position) in the first round than it is in the others. I don't see how that's debateable.

You people are making it out to seem like fantastic players are regularly found in the fourth or lower rounds. If that were true, then why don't we, and every other team who has a staff of dozens, trade away their first round picks every single year?

Well, the evidence provided in the OP (incomplete as it is), mostly says that there are a lot of 1st round QBs starting in the NFL. Even then, he lists a couple guys (Vick, Leinart) who don't even start on the teams that they are on now.

He also leaves out a few QBs. How about Matt Cassell? (7th round pick) Jake Delhomme? (undrafted) Kyle Orton? (3rd Round) David Garrard? (4th Round) Marc Bulger? (6th Round) Chad Henne? (2nd round)

This isn't even talking about Kevin Kolb, who looks to be McNabb's eventual successor. He was a 2nd round pick.

Not all of these guys are great, but the same could be said for the original list.

[Jeff in D.C.]

For other teams that may be true, not so much for the Redskins. In the 74 years of the draft, the Redskins have chosen a QB in the first round 12 times. All, save for Sammy Baugh, were busts. I could list all their names but I don't think thats neccessary. Why would I believe that a franchise that's hits one time on the QB spot in the last 74 years has suddenly got it figured out?

For the record, I can read. Just finished Judy Bloom's Super Fudge last week. Didn't understand some of it, but finished it none the less.

Because we have competent football people in charge now? Last I checked, having competent football people in charge has to count for something.

[NewCliche21]

Well, the evidence provided in the OP (incomplete as it is), mostly says that there are a lot of 1st round QBs starting in the NFL. Even then, he lists a couple guys (Vick, Leinart) who don't even start on the teams that they are on now.

He also leaves out a few QBs. How about Matt Cassell? (7th round pick) Jake Delhomme? (undrafted) Kyle Orton? (3rd Round) David Garrard? (4th Round) Marc Bulger? (6th Round) Chad Henne? (2nd round)

This isn't even talking about Kevin Kolb, who looks to be McNabb's eventual successor. He was a 2nd round pick.

Not all of these guys are great, but the same could be said for the original list.

So do you think that there is a better chance of drafting a franchise quarterback in the first round or third and below?

[TheLongshot]

So do you think that there is a better chance of drafting a franchise quarterback in the first round or third and below?

I kinda commented on this in my first post on the thread. The data is somewhat skewed to 1st round picks because they tend to get the bulk of the opportunities. They are more likely to start from day one, not because they necessarily earn the right, but because the teams that draft them don't have a better option. Considering that it is a position that you don't get many reps at if you are not the starter, it puts everyone else behind the 8-ball. Sometimes, it takes an injury to give a player the opportunity to prove themselves.

To answer your question, I don't know. That's mainly because we get more data from 1st round picks and that those drafted further back may never get an opportunity to prove themselves.

[NewCliche21]

I kinda commented on this in my first post on the thread. The data is somewhat skewed to 1st round picks because they tend to get the bulk of the opportunities. They are more likely to start from day one, not because they necessarily earn the right, but because the teams that draft them don't have a better option. Considering that it is a position that you don't get many reps at if you are not the starter, it puts everyone else behind the 8-ball. Sometimes, it takes an injury to give a player the opportunity to prove themselves.

To answer your question, I don't know. That's mainly because we get more data from 1st round picks and that those drafted further back may never get an opportunity to prove themselves.

Sigh. This is just going to be a circular argument.

However, you're not just knee-jerk and you do really believe in what you believe in, so I'll agree to disagree.

[Looking For Number Four]

You need to take Vince Young, Matthew Stafford (you have him down twice), Mark Sanchez, Michael Vick, Alex Smith, Matt Leinart, Brady Quinn, and Jason Campbell out of that first round list. You could make the argument for Jay Cutler and Joe Flacco as well.

That leaves you with about 8 great QBs taken in the 1st Round recently, as opposed to the 7 taken in the 2nd or later.

8 vs 7. Means you are more likely to find a good QB in the first round.

Well duh. Scouts are not incompetent, they'll find talent. But your list actually proves that taking a 1st round QB is a gamble (as is taking ANY player in ANY round in the draft), and that you CAN draft good QBs later in the draft.

Vick has been deep into the playoffs and set the NFL record for rushing yards by a QB, which led to his team leading the league in rushing.

Sanchez hit a 80 yard bomb while throwing for over 250 yards and two TDs against a Superbowl team his rookie season.

Vince Young has also been to the playoffs and took a 0-6 team over and proceeded to go 8-2. The only change on that team was him.

Alex Smith threw 18 TDs and did not play a single snap until Week 7. He was also able to amass those with only throwing 12 INTs, completing over 60% of his passes. No other QB has been given the starting job, had it taken away, given it back, had it taken away. That is simply not how you enable a QB to develop, grow, and succeed.

There is certainly not enough data to make any determinations regarding Stafford, Leinart, or Quinn, just yet. Campbell was taken in the deepest of the 1st round of any of these QBs and appears to have the lowest ceiling, thus far.

I was not listing these QBs to state that they were taking in the 1st round and have proved you must take them there. I listed them to show how many current NFL QBs were taken in the 1st round. Give your conclusion, I think we can all agree that a 50/50 shot on striking gold is probably worth the risk.