The Tris Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 There's a difference between winning, and winning with youth. If we are building a sound long term team to support said franchise QB, it is just as valuable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinzfever2010 Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 Tank? We won't need to tank anything our team sucks. This season is about coming together and growth. Our defense will do its best which will result in them winning us 4 or 5 games maybe less (3-4 is still being learned). Our offense is one big cluster **** of a work in progress. New average WRs, rookie WRs, and two good TEs isn't going to cut it in the NFC BEAST. Andrew Luck 2012 Hail! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiingspadee Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 I just wanted to post this http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?319933-OK-those-that-feel-like-we-should-draft-an-OL-over-a-QB-at-4-interesting-stuff-regarding-QBs-and-the-Draft Not all of this is mine - however I have put this in numerous threads. Since some of the time they get pushed out of the way by other debates I felt like it was time to post it in another thread. Sorry to MODS if this is any sort of problem however I feel like it is rather good info and some people may not go through looking page by page. Found an interesting little article http://www.bloguin.com/articles/foot...rterbacks.html There were 29 quarterbacks selected in the top 16 of the NFL Draft since 1993... Hits: 13 Busts: 12 OK: 2 TBA: 2 Quarterback Hit Rate: 48.2% Quarterback Bust Rate: 44.4% Also, second-round quarterbacks have a 90.9-percent bust rate (I'll be exploring this soon). Excluding Drew Brees and possibly Chad Henne, name one successful Round 2 quarterback in the past decade. Don't try, because there are none. Believe it or not, the next best guy is Tarvaris Jackson (Kevin Kolb and Chad Henne being unknowns right now). *So don't bother with Tebow in the 2nd Also found this How many first round draft pick quarterbacks have won the Super Bowl As of the 2007 season: Joe Namath - Super Bowl III Bob Griese - Super Bowl VII and VIII Terry Bradshaw - Super Bowls IX, X, XII, and XIII Jim Plunkett - Super Bowls XV and XVIII Jim McMahon - Super Bowl XX Phil Simms - Super Bowl XXI Doug Williams - Super Bowl XXII Troy Aikman - Super Bowls XXVII, XXVIII, and Steve Young - Super Bowl XXIX John Elway - Super Bowls XXXII and XXXIII Trent Dilfer - Super Bowl XXXV Ben Roethlisberger - Super Bowl XL Peyton Manning - Super Bowl XLI And Peyton Manning, Tennessee (1st overall) Donovan McNabb, Syracuse (2nd overall) Daunte Culpepper, Central Florida (11th overall) Chad Pennington, Marshall (18th overall) Carson Palmer, USC (1st overall) Eli Manning, Mississippi (1st overall) Philip Rivers, N.C. State (4th overall) Ben Roethlisberger, Miami-Ohio (11th overall) Aaron Rodgers, California (24th overall) Jay Cutler, Vanderbilt (11th overall) Matt Ryan, Boston College (3rd overall) Joe Flacco, Delaware (18th overall) Matthew Stafford, Georgia (1st overall) Mark Sanchez, USC (5th overall) And Finally Between 1970 and 2006, 577 quarterbacks have been drafted by NFL teams. Of those 577, 78, or 13.5 percent, were drafted in the first round. More quarterbacks have been drafted in the first round than any other round in the draft. Of those first round picks, 31, or 40 percent, have played in the Pro Bowl at least once in their careers. Generally, the later a quarterback is selected in the draft, the less likely he is to reach the Pro Bowl. Second and third round selections have reached the Pro Bowl 20 percent of the time, and after that the rate drops precipitously to 10 percent or less. A total of 77 quarterbacks who entered the league between 1970 and 2006 have played in the Pro Bowl, of which the 31 first round picks comprise 40 percent. Under one half of quarterbacks who have played in the Pro Bowl were first round draft picks, but the proportion of Super Bowl winners is even more in favor of first rounders. Twenty quarterbacks who entered the league between 1970 and 2006 have started for teams that won the Super Bowl, and of those 20, 11 were drafted in the first round. Of all quarterbacks drafted in the first round, 14 percent have started on the team that won the Super Bowl. For quarterbacks drafted later or not at all, the rate is less than two percent. Finally, the ultimate test of greatness is an election into the Hall of Fame. To date, nine quarterbacks who entered the league in 1970 or later have been enshrined in Canton, and three active quarterbacks (as of the 2008 season) can be considered locks for election after they retire, bringing the total to 12 current or future Hall of Fame quarterbacks who entered the league since 1970. Of those 12, six were first round draft picks. Of the remainder, three were taken in the second or third round, and the rest were undrafted or drafted late. And if you look at the list of some of the best quarterbacks drafted in the past 12 years 8 of 14 were drafted in the top 10. And of those 8 all 8 were in the top FIVE. How many of those 8 are franchise quarterbacks? All 8 but let's say 6 of 8 since Sanchez and Stafford are still well new. But Sanchez did reach the playoffs! Then if we take a look at those that won a super bowl from my list Joe Namath - 1st Overall (of course the St. Louis Cardinals drafted him 12th overall in the NFL but he went to the Jets in the AFL) Bob Griese - 4th Overall Terry Bradshaw - 1st Overall Jim Plunkett - 1st Overall Jim McMahon - 5th Overall Phil Simms - 7th Overall Doug Williams - 17th Overall Troy Aikman - 1st Overall Steve Young - 1st Round (Supplement Draft) John Elway - 1st Overall Trent Dilfer - 6th Overall Ben Roethlisberger - 11th Overall Peyton Manning - 1st Overall Eli Manning - 1st Overall So let us see how many were drafted in the Top 5 - 10 out of 14. How many in the top 10 you ask - 12 out of 14. Out of these 14 quarterbacks how many Super Bowl's do they have? 23! 5 of the 14 also won multiple Super Bowls. All 5 were selected in the top 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 So let us see how many were drafted in the Top 5 - 10 out of 14. How many in the top 10 you ask - 12 out of 14. Out of these 14 quarterbacks how many Super Bowl's do they have? 23! 5 of the 14 also won multiple Super Bowls. All 5 were selected in the top 5 Cheers Klings. I've seen the whole article before from a previous posting as you mentioned, but good to read through it again. The above piece from your post just brings home even more to me both our desperate need for a QB of that ilk; and why I'd be perfectly happy to end up with one of the worst records in the league this year to be picking top 5 with a chance of a guy of the caliber of a Luck or Jones. (And I know there's no guarantee on any draft pick. But if you aren't even in a position to take that gamble on the potential of what I and many others think will be darn good pro QB's, then your never gona' know. And Hell knows we need to know.). We've not had a franchise QB since Sonny J hung it up back in the year I was born, 1974 IMHO. 37 freaking years waiting for the most important person on this or any other team. That's scandalous in anyone's book. And you can't win consistently in the NFL of 2011 without a player under center of that ilk. Improving the win column to around .500 or better this year would just keep us in the same, tired ol' cycle of not being able to move forward due to mediocre play from the most important person on the team. (And not having the ammo to move up for one of the REAL good ones.). Unless of course Beck turns out to be that missing link and plays like the top echelon group in this league. Though I doubt there's many, if any, that even dares hope that will happen. Long term future > superficial feel good wins in the present. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoefly72 Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 I appreciate the time you took to compile those stats, but with all due respect a lot of them don't go very far in proving anything. Different teams draft guys in different spots in the first round for so many reasons, and lumping them all into a couple categories just based on their draft position doesn't really show much. For example, the Titans just drafted Jake Locker in the top ten (which many thought was a bad pick and a reach) based pretty much on potential as he has not shown a great body of work passing the ball or reading coverage in college. If he doesn't pan out, using the logic of your post it would be another tally mark in support of the fact that drafting a QB in the top ten doesn't guarantee that he'll be good. While that statement is true on the surface, it's only true because you still have to properly evaluate the player ( Drafting a bad player in the top ten doesn't turn him into a good player). Most would agree that Locker wasn't worthy of a top ten pick, so just because one team over valued him and picked him at that spot doesn't mean it should support your argument. Also there are some years where the class is weaker and a guy who goes in the top ten wouldn't even be top 20 in another draft. The main reason why most think it's better to pick a QB high is because if you assume that talent has accurately been evaluated, teams are going to pick the best players first before anybody else does. So after a certain point those elite players are gone. Conversely you can end up with an elite player outside of the top ten if everybody misses in their evaluation of him or he's a late bloomer, or teams pick based on their needs etc. Aaron Rodgers and Alex Smith were tossups as to who was the best QB prospect that year. The Niners liked Smith (whiff) and Rodgers slid because nobody else needed a QB. He was picked in the 20's, but most teams probably still thought of him as a top ten talent. If teams in the top ten had needed a QB that year he would have been picked there, and it would support the opposite argument. There are too many variables that go into the draft to draw conclusions based on top 10 or 10-20. However, to simplify it, prospects like Manning, Bradford, Luck etc (who have shown elite passing abilities and have physical tools, rather than somebody who is drafted merely on potential like Cam Newton, Jamarcus Russel, Kyle Boller etc)never fall that low because they are close to a sure thing and are in high demand. So while you may land an elite player outside the top ten because people slept on him, teams had different needs, etc, it is much easier and reliable to work with as many known quantities as possible. (I am confident player X is going to be a star, if I pick the highest I can make sure nobody else picks him and not have to hope that nobody else needs him or thinks he's as good as he really is). If you could go back in time, you STILL want to be the 49ers because you control your own destiny. This time around you think Aaron Rodgers is better and take him at 1. The Packers can't do anything about it; the only way they could have landed him was to hope everyone else didn't realize how good he'd be. I'd rather rely on my own scouting abilities and pick whoever I want than to rely on 10-20 other teams to undervalue the guy I want and/or not have a need for his position. And obviously since you can't pick #1 every year, you'd like to get as close as possible to this utopian position if there is an elite guy like Luck on the board. The further up the board you go, the more players you have to choose from and the more you control your own destiny and don't have to worry about teams picking a player you want. Sure you might mis-evaluate a guy, but you can't operate under the assumption that your scouting is incompetent so it doesn't behoove you to get the guy you have rated the highest. Another example is if you say that the best players make the most money. Well you can look at a number of guys who are very good and aren't the highest paid, and you can look at a number of guys who are mediocre and yet are paid the most. That doesn't disprove the fact that in general the best players will make the most money, it proves that teams overpay and overvalue players *cough*ALBERT*cough* just like they overvalue players in the draft. Now of course if your team is already competing and has few holes there's no point in having this discussion because you're willing to play the odds that you can get a good player to help you out based on other teams not needing him, undervaluing him, or the fact that you don't think any one player is appreciably better than the others. But in general, kingspadees post and stats point to the fact that if a team scouts well and picks a quarterback early in the first round, he will probably be pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 You would expect high first round picks to have a higher rate of success, of course. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the notion that you need to pick in the top 5 to get a good QB, or that a top 5 QB will necessarily be the answer. Where was Heath Shuler drafted? Ryan Leaf? What round was Joe Montana picked in? Tom Brady? Kurt Warner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grinder Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 You would expect high first round picks to have a higher rate of success, of course. That is not in dispute.What is in dispute is the notion that you need to pick in the top 5 to get a good QB, or that a top 5 QB will necessarily be the answer. Where was Heath Shuler drafted? Ryan Leaf? What round was Joe Montana picked in? Tom Brady? Kurt Warner? What are "outliers" for a thousand, Alex? You can't count on other teams mis-evaluations to score a franchise QB in the mid or late rounds. The elite live in the top of the first round and the heavy odds are that's where we need to get our guy. And the worst thing this franchise could do is continue to be scared of drafting a QB high due to the ghost of Heath Schuler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiingspadee Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Cheers Klings. I've seen the whole article before from a previous posting as you mentioned, but good to read through it again.The above piece from your post just brings home even more to me both our desperate need for a QB of that ilk; and why I'd be perfectly happy to end up with one of the worst records in the league this year to be picking top 5 with a chance of a guy of the caliber of a Luck or Jones. (And I know there's no guarantee on any draft pick. But if you aren't even in a position to take that gamble on the potential of what I and many others think will be darn good pro QB's, then your never gona' know. And Hell knows we need to know.). We've not had a franchise QB since Sonny J hung it up back in the year I was born, 1974 IMHO. 37 freaking years waiting for the most important person on this or any other team. That's scandalous in anyone's book. And you can't win consistently in the NFL of 2011 without a player under center of that ilk. Improving the win column to around .500 or better this year would just keep us in the same, tired ol' cycle of not being able to move forward due to mediocre play from the most important person on the team. (And not having the ammo to move up for one of the REAL good ones.). Unless of course Beck turns out to be that missing link and plays like the top echelon group in this league. Though I doubt there's many, if any, that even dares hope that will happen. Long term future > superficial feel good wins in the present. Hail. Glad you enjoy the read - it is definitely an eye opener Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rpredskins Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 The only team I am worried about is Buffalo. They are going to suck this year and need a QB. The other possibility is the Browns. Other than them, every team has either a starter or a young QB who theyre not going to replace with a First round pick. Worst case scenario we get the "3rd best" QB. And remember trading up is not as hard as you think. Unless the new system has dramatically reduced rookie contracts, somebody in the top 5 will be happy to trade down. Honestly I would be perfectly happy if we traded 2 first round picks to get Luck. Getting a franchise QB is worth any price Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampEm Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Big Ben, and Aaron Rodgers were taken out of the top 10 and they thier teams still managed to be okay last year. Only 1 out of the last 12 SB winning QB's were taken with the top pick.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 You would expect high first round picks to have a higher rate of success, of course. That is not in dispute.What is in dispute is the notion that you need to pick in the top 5 to get a good QB, or that a top 5 QB will necessarily be the answer. Where was Heath Shuler drafted? Ryan Leaf? What round was Joe Montana picked in? Tom Brady? Kurt Warner? Those are the exception, not the rule. You could draft a QB in the 4th+ round over the next 10 years and easily miss on all of them. The better chance of getting a keeper is to draft one at the top of the 1st. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggins77 Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 we'll see...if Carolina is kicking our ass in 2 years.. and we are still posting 8-8.. you will have been proven wrong. I wouldn't use playing Carolina to determine if his theory is right or wrong. The thing about this years QB class was that it is weak. Weakest QB class in a long time and so many teams needed a QB, all of them got drafted way higher than they should have. Personally, none of these QBs should have been drafted until the late first round based on the overall talent in the draft. But it happened. As for the original post: I agree that we do not need to tank the season in order to grab a top QB in next years draft. And I would like to think that the organization would not intentially tank the season even if we are 5-7 with 4 games left and no shot at making the playoffs just to pick lower. Now because of the rookie salary cap, we have to worry about some teams not being scared to spend the money they did in the past to land one of the top picks. Less fear in paying 22 million over 4 years (Newton) than 50 million over 5 million (Bradford). This goes for any player at any position, teams in the past that didnt have a lot of cap space and didnt want to pay out a ton for a top 5 pick, don't have to worry as much anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 The good news for us is that even if we DO happen to win 5-6 games, which is definitely possible, trading up into the top of the draft isn't as risky anymore with the new rookie wage scale. Hell, Cam would have made more $$ if he stayed at Auburn. :paranoid: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.