Rookie QB or Veteran QB for "Next Season"??? (I didn't bump this, but I ended up being wrong anyway....)

[Malapropismic Depository]

30 minutes ago, skeenzfan said:

 

I would pump the brakes on 'great'. TH showed promise with one game in which he got injured and Allen was average in the limited time before he got injured. I would lean more on the side of we don't have 'any great' QB and that is why wanted Stafford. 

 

I agree.

I just have this personality pattern of playfully exaggerating the greatness of Heinicke

 

[CapsSkins]

6 hours ago, Fat Stupid Loser said:

40M???

Curious where you were on Cousins.

 

To be clear, I'm not saying that's what I want to happen. It's my take on what I think will happen (if Dak does not get tagged, though I think he ultimately will get tagged).

 

I never liked Cousins and was okay letting him go but think Bruce mis-managed the asset in not getting a better return (similar to Trent). But I also feel better about the roster & coaching staff now than when Cousins and Bruce/Gruden were here.

Edited March 4, 2021 by CapsSkins

[Rufus T Firefly]

2 hours ago, Lovi said:

i though he had a lot of “so-called” experts that wanted to buy his model. Whatever happened to that?  Lol

That's probably why we don't see him here anymore. Once his ideas were bought, he wasn't allowed to post anymore because his brain was proprietary technology. 

[Otis Wonsley Posse]

On 2/24/2021 at 4:36 AM, mistertim said:

 

Oh good. More Tom Brady comparisons. 

 

 

 

As others have noted, there's a difference between a super athletic guy who can buy time with his legs and make off schedule plays when necessary and a running QB. Mahomes, Allen, Wilson are the former type. Lamar Jackson is a running QB. I don't see those two really being in the same category. And I don't think running QBs are going to become a huge thing again either. Everyone thought the same thing after 2012 with RG3 and Kaep, but that didn't go so well.

Not a comparison at all; maybe he’s found a home in DC

On 3/1/2021 at 9:25 AM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

Standig

 

 

No thanks to more geriatric QBs

[clskinsfan]

5 hours ago, ExoDus84 said:

 

Normally I'd agree with you, but it's exceptionally rare that a QB of Watson's caliber becomes available. For talent like that at the most important position, sometimes you need to swing for the fences.

Problem is it will wreck your entire team to get him. We have an incredible DL. And Houston will want parts of it for Watson. No thanks. 

[mistertim]

2 hours ago, Otis Wonsley Posse said:

 

No thanks to more geriatric QBs

 

I'd be ok with Fitz as long as we also were doing something else to address the position, for example if we also drafted a QB in the 1st or 2nd round...maybe a guy with a bunch of upside but who may need a year to be ready (Lance, Mond, and Newman come to mind). Sign Fitz to a 1 or 2 year contract and let the young guy develop. Let Allen and Heinicke compete for the starting job, but WFT has been pretty clear that they're looking for an upgrade so if they bring Fitz in, I'm guessing he'd likely be the starter unless Allen or Heinicke truly wow in camp and preseason.

Edited March 5, 2021 by mistertim

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

 

 

[HigSkin]

They were discussing on "Get Up" this morning the stats on trading up or picking high and hit rates of doing so.

 

• For every Mahomes and Watson there's a Manzeil or Rosen
• Less than 50% of 1st round QB's make the ProBowl
• Only 40% of 1st round QB's wind up signing a 2nd contract
• Of 22 QBS drafted between 2009-2016 none remain on the team that drafted them
• Of the 37 1st round QB's drafted since 2009 Mahomes is the only one to win a SuperBowl
• Cam Newton and Goff only others to reach one
• Highest graded of the last 10 year, Luck, RG3, Gabbert and Winston.  Luck's retried, none of the others are starters this season.

 

Edited March 5, 2021 by HigSkin

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[Jericho]

21 minutes ago, HigSkin said:

They were discussing on "Get Up" this morning the stats on trading up or picking high and hit rates of doing so.

 

• For every Mahomes and Watson there's a Manzeil or Rosen
• Less than 50% of 1st round QB's make the ProBowl
• Only 40% of 1st round QB's wind up signing a 2nd contract
• Of 22 QBS drafted between 2009-2016 none remain on the team that drafted them
• Of the 37 1st round QB's drafted since 2009 Mahomes is the only one to win a SuperBowl
• Cam Newton and Goff only others to reach one
• Highest graded of the last 10 year, Luck, RG3, Gabbert and Winston.  Luck's retried, none of the others are starters this season. 

 

Which makes it sound like you shouldn't draft a QB in the first round. Except the fact around 75% of the league's starting QBs are former first rounders and the success rate of non-first round picks in that time is almost zero. Between 2009 and now I can think of 4 non-first round starters (Prescott, Cousins, Carr, and Wilson) and whatever Jimmy Garoppolo is (he's played 7 years in the NFL and started more than 8 games once...with very mediocre numbers). So, pick your poison?

[Thinking Skins]

3 minutes ago, Jericho said:

 

Which makes it sound like you shouldn't draft a QB in the first round. Except the fact around 75% of the league's starting QBs are former first rounders and the success rate of non-first round picks in that time is almost zero. Between 2009 and now I can think of 4 non-first round starters (Prescott, Cousins, Carr, and Wilson) and whatever Jimmy Garoppolo is (he's played 7 years in the NFL and started more than 8 games once...with very mediocre numbers). So, pick your poison?

The thing is you pick your poison. Do you want to spend the time and resources to pick a first round QB who is not going to sign a second contract, or do you want to sign a former first rounder coming off their first contract, already had some development done with the first staff. Maybe not there yet but maybe closer than a rookie would be. Or there is the option of drafting a 3rd or 4th rounder and seeing what happens. The FA choice allows you to even do both, whereas when you draft a first rounder he's normally the starter and you look for a lesser backup to not upend your first rounder and don't generally draft a lower round pick because you don't want him to threaten your first rounder. 

[Koolblue13]

I like that Turner seems to be building an offense that simplifies the QB position. I think that is a trend we'll continue to see. The position just handicaps the league too much and you can't have players controlling coaches futures.

[Skinsinparadise]

As for draft success, the QBs taken in the first especially in the middle-later part is very hit and miss.   The problem is its hit and miss in a big way every round and the further down you go in the draft its really hard to get a hit.

 

The reason why I somewhat dismiss the first rounder debate versus QBs outside of the first rouind is it presents a false choice.  If you want to do it in a real way, it would be for example do you have a better chance of getting a franchise QB in the first round or 2nd round?  But instead people frame it where its the first round versus EVERY round.  But that's not reality. 

 

It's not like we have a choice of taking Mac Jones lets say in the first round or we get a lottery of 6 QBs from the 2nd round through the 7th.  If that's how it worked, I'd be in favor of a non first round QB.  If you gave me Mac Jones versus the combination of Kyle Trask, Ian Book, Jamie Newman, Peyton Ramsey, Ehlinger, Kellen Mond.  I'd take the 6 QBs and bet that I'd more likely land on a hit.  

 

And that's how many frame the debate which is the odds are better that among the 6 players you are more likely to get a hit than 1 player.  Well, yeah.  I'd say the same about most positions especially if its not a top 5 pick in the first.  But that's fantasy.  That's not the real world debate.  The real world debate is what are the better odds a franchise Qb lets say in the first round or the 4th round or whatever.  That's how you debate the issue.

 

https://www.theringer.com/2021/3/3/22311366/quarterback-draft-history-success-rate-trevor-lawrence

 

Of the 24 quarterbacks who have been the no. 1 pick in the NFL draft since 1970, 11 of them (46 percent) went on to record the most career AV of anyone in their class at the position.

• Kyler Murray, 2019
• Jameis Winston, 2015
• Cam Newton, 2011
• Sam Bradford, 2010
• Matt Stafford, 2009
• Carson Palmer, 2003
• Peyton Manning, 1998
• Drew Bledsoe, 1993
• Jeff George, 1990
• Troy Aikman, 1989
• Terry Bradshaw, 1970

Meanwhile, in the drafts in which a quarterback was not the no. 1 pick, teams went 7-for-27 (25.9 percent) in taking the right guy first. This would seem to make intuitive sense: NFL teams have a higher hit rate with those rare QB prospects who are deemed sure things.

Even some of the top picks who were surpassed by other quarterbacks from their class in terms of career AV turned out to be superstars: Elway, Luck, and Michael Vick, for example, are not draft misses. And no matter what the numbers suggest, you can’t tell a Giants fan that Philip Rivers and Ben Roethlisberger had better careers than Eli Manning—the rings help them sleep well at night.

No. 1 Pick QBs Without Most AV in Their Class

Draft	No. 1 Pick QB	Top QB by AV	Career AV Difference
2020	Joe Burrow	Justin Herbert	6
2018	Baker Mayfield	Lamar Jackson	18
2016	Jared Goff	Dak Prescott	11
2012	Andrew Luck	Russell Wilson	49
2007	JaMarcus Russell	Trent Edwards	11
2005	Alex Smith	Aaron Rodgers	54
2004	Eli Manning	Philip Rivers	41
2002	David Carr	David Garrard	17
2001	Michael Vick	Drew Brees	74
1999	Tim Couch	Donovan McNabb	77
1987	Vinny Testaverde	Rich Gannon	2
1983	John Elway	Dan Marino	7
1975	Steve Bartkowski	Steve Grogan	20
1971	Jim Plunkett	Ken Anderson	35

There are only a few instances of complete whiffs with quarterbacks who’ve gone no. 1 overall. The least productive one is Jamarcus Russell by a long shot, but he was part of a strange 2007 class from which no quarterbacks had lengthy careers. (The QB AV leader from that draft: Trent Edwards.) Same goes for David Carr—a bust, but in a draft whose top quarterback was David Garrard. These are outliers. Some quarterbacks who are now generally considered lackluster no. 1 picks (such as Jeff George and Sam Bradford) actually were the best quarterbacks in their respective classes, even if they didn’t live up to the superstar expectations that come with being the top pick.

This is cause for optimism for Jaguars fans. There is a difference between the drafts in which the top quarterback prospect is clear and the drafts in which no such player is available. The odds are high that Lawrence will have a great career. Relying on career AV data and nothing else, though, there’s a better than 50 percent chance that a quarterback other than the presumptive no. 1 pick will have the most successful career in this class. For all of the “Tank for Trevor” talk last fall, history indicates this could go down as the Justin Fields draft, the Trey Lance draft, or the Zach Wilson draft. (Or, uh, the Mac Jones draft.)

Edited March 5, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[Thinking Skins]

@Skinsinparadise, this is our neverending discussion though. Because the whole idea of a first round QB goes beyond the first pick. At some point it becomes about value. Like when is it better to take the third best QB in the first vs say the best OT or the best EDGE rusher? So many years we have heard of these all star QB classes and they have NEVER lived up to it. 2004 was close where we had Manning, Rivers, and Roth

 

1999 - 5 QBs in the first Smith and McNown were busts (the third and fifth QBs taken)

2000 - 1 QB and he was meh (Pennington)

2001 - 1 QB and he was great (Vick) but the number 2 was even better (Brees)

2002 - 3 QBs taken and all were busts 

2003 - 4 QBs taken and 3 were busts (Palmer good, Leftwich, Boller, Grossman were busts)

2004 - Epic class, 5 taken only Losman at 22 was a bust

2005  - 3 Qbs taken second was the elite, first and third taken were meh. 

2006 - 3 qbs taken best was the third (Cutler) other two were meh and a bust. 

2007 - 2 QBs, 2 busts

2008 - 2 QBs, 2 good choices

2009 - 3 QBs, 1 good choice, two meh guys. 

2010 - 2 QBs, one hella injured guy, one bust

2011 - 4 QBs taken, 3 busts. 

2012 - 4 QBs taken, 2 legit starters, 2 busts

2013 - 1 QB, 1 bust

2014 - 3 QBs, 2 busts and 1 meh

2015 - 2 QBS, and 2 busts (maybe meh)

2016 - 3 QBs, 1 bust, 2 meh

2017 - 3 QBs, 2 elite 1 meh

2018 - 5 QBs, 2 great, 1 good, 1 meh, 1 bust

2019 - 3 QBs, 1 great, 1 meh, 1 bust

2020 - 4 QBs, 2 elite, 1 meh, 1 unknown

 

obviously 2020 is still to be seen. But even if we go back and make it so that the best QB was the first one taken (so in 2005 assume Rodgers was taken 1 overall), I wish teams would sit and think about how much better Smith or Campbell was than a Kyle Orton or a Derek Anderson or a Marr Cassel or a Ryan Fitzpatrick. 

 

Its obvious that you have better chances of getting an elite QB in the first but that goes for all positions. And while QB is the most important position it is also the most dependent position and unless you've got a guy who can literally change the game on his own I think you're better off building up that team. In 2005, I do wish we had drafted Aaron Rodgers over Carlos Rogers because he was supposed to go number 1 overall and we wound up getting a QB anyway. If we wanted a QB why not go with the one who fell to us instead of trading up for a lesser one (by all draft boards). 

 

I think that there are so many things that contribute to the development of a QB so I'm not a fan of forcing it. That goes for any round, but there are way more steals available in the first. I can't imagine how our fan base would feel if we had drafted J.P Losman (4th best QB) over Sean Taylor in 2004. Imagine if it had gone Manning, Rivers, Ben, at 1 2 3 and we're sitting there at 4? Would that have made Losman a better QB? Nope. I think he still would have been a bust. That said, Imagine if we had drafted Matt Schaub in the 3rd. That could have been the QB we needed for Gibbs's second tenure here. But we'll never know. 

 

And the thing is that in most years, since there is a bust in the first, there is generally a QB in the later rounds who has a higher or at least comparable AV (from PFR) than one of the first round QBs.  

 

[Jericho]

45 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

The thing is you pick your poison. Do you want to spend the time and resources to pick a first round QB who is not going to sign a second contract, or do you want to sign a former first rounder coming off their first contract, already had some development done with the first staff. Maybe not there yet but maybe closer than a rookie would be. Or there is the option of drafting a 3rd or 4th rounder and seeing what happens. The FA choice allows you to even do both, whereas when you draft a first rounder he's normally the starter and you look for a lesser backup to not upend your first rounder and don't generally draft a lower round pick because you don't want him to threaten your first rounder. 

 

I think it depends on what you want. If you're just seeking competence, you might find something worthwhile in free agency. A guy like a Winston or a Mariota or more recently a Trubisky would fit the mold of failed first rounders. But even halfway decent QBs like Derek Carr or Andy Dalton or Jared Goff signed extensions. So they never hit free agency and the pickings are pretty slim in most years, Ultimately, there seems to be a ceiling to any type of reclamation project.

 

If you want the next Mahomes, you're going to have draft that guy. And if you want to limit yourself to non-first round picks, I counted 106 non-first round QBs between 2009 and 2020. Admittedly it's too early on a few of them to know what they are. But I basically counted 4 or 5 actual starters. Which is maybe a 5% hit rate? That's not super exciting to think your 3rd round pick has a 5% chance of being the next Kirk Cousins.

[Skinsinparadise]

7 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

@Skinsinparadise, this is our neverending discussion though. Because the whole idea of a first round QB goes beyond the first pick. At some point it becomes about value. Like when is it better to take the third best QB in the first vs say the best OT or the best EDGE rusher? So many years we have heard of these all star QB classes and they have NEVER lived up to it. 2004 was close where we had Manning, Rivers, and Roth

 

 

 

Depends on context.  Depends on the draft.  For example the idea that Jake Locker and Christian Ponder ended up busts-- no shockers but it was a crappy draft for QB and there weren't many options.  the odds of your success of finding a QB with one mid round pick is extremely low.  And yes much lower that a first rounder. 

 

With your criteria though (at least based on some of your previous points), I can't really debate you because we seem to be looking for two different things.  I am looking for the steak and you seem pleased with a roast beef sandwich.  If I am looking for roast beef too, you'd be right on IMO.  

 

You don't seem that hung up on quality at that spot, you seem into guys that others (like me) deem to be just guys, I gather because you think one day they can go beyond or you are satisfied with a 9-7 run, here and there?  So if my bar is some of the QBs you've touted like Nick Mullens or when you tout the Case Keenum deal or you still aren't convinced that Jason Campbell wasn't the right QB for this team -- I am with you on that front if that's the bar.  If I am looking for next Jason Campbell or Keenum, what the heck don't waste a first rounder on finding that dude, you can find the next Keenum in the 6th round, I agree. 

[Rufus T Firefly]

This may sound insane, but what about if we have a personnel department that evaluates players, and chooses them accordingly, rather than saying something like "boy, Johnny Manziel and Blaine Gabbert sucked, so we better not take a 1st round QB"?

 

I know that seems really out there to expect a front office to decide whether or not they want to draft a player based on how good they think he is or will be, but I think it may be worth a shot. 

[Koolblue13]

2 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

This may sound insane, but what about if we have a personnel department that evaluates players, and chooses them accordingly, rather than saying something like "boy, Johnny Manziel and Blaine Gabbert sucked, so we better not take a 1st round QB"?

 

I know that seems really out there to expect a front office to decide whether or not they want to draft a player based on how good they think he is or will be, but I think it may be worth a shot. 

We don't?

[Est.1974]

8 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 I am looking for the steak and you seem pleased with a roast beef sandwich. 

Dagger to the heart 

[HigSkin]

1 hour ago, Jericho said:

 

Which makes it sound like you shouldn't draft a QB in the first round. Except the fact around 75% of the league's starting QBs are former first rounders and the success rate of non-first round picks in that time is almost zero. Between 2009 and now I can think of 4 non-first round starters (Prescott, Cousins, Carr, and Wilson) and whatever Jimmy Garoppolo is (he's played 7 years in the NFL and started more than 8 games once...with very mediocre numbers). So, pick your poison?

 

It is pick your poison for sure and wouldn't be one to say don't draft a QB in the first round or stop doing it.  They were merely pointing out the hit rate and then the trading up which could make the risk even worse with busts because of the setbacks you cause in doing so.  Guys in the FO and scouting departments get paid lots of money to figure it out, successfully or not. 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

7 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

Dagger to the heart 

 

Nothing wrong with a good roast beef sandwich 😀,  lol, I've debated with @Thinking Skins many times about the QBs, he's numerous times touted how SF found Nick Mullens and how there are other QBs out there like that.   He is cool with Jason Camobell through this day from what I recall.  Has touted the Keenum deal.  He strikes me to be in the camp that you don't need a big time QB.  So it hit me, if I look at things that way, I'd be cool with the mid-late rounder types, too.  Because on that front guys like Dak Prescott are unicorns.   But if you are looking for the next Nick Mullens or Chad Henne type -- it isn't terribly hard to find dudes like that later in the draft.   

Edited March 5, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[Jericho]

54 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Of the 24 quarterbacks who have been the no. 1 pick in the NFL draft since 1970, 11 of them (46 percent) went on to record the most career AV of anyone in their class at the position.

• Kyler Murray, 2019
• Jameis Winston, 2015
• Cam Newton, 2011
• Sam Bradford, 2010
• Matt Stafford, 2009
• Carson Palmer, 2003
• Peyton Manning, 1998
• Drew Bledsoe, 1993
• Jeff George, 1990
• Troy Aikman, 1989
• Terry Bradshaw, 1970

 

Kind of interesting that there's nearly a twenty year gap between Bradshaw and Aikman. But post-Aikman it seems there's a hit every few years. In fact, between 1970 and 1990 it doesn't seem like a QB went #1 overall very often. There's only 4 #1 overall guys between Bradshaw and Aikman, and three of them (Vinny Testaverde, John Elway, Jim Plunkett) were pretty good. Then it all changed, and drafting a QB #1 seemed to happen a lot. Does suggest some teams are forcing the pick, but it also suggests that team are valuing the position a lot more (and plausibly getting better at evaluating talent at it?) 

[JamesMadisonSkins]

Michael Phillips from the RIchmond Times Dispatch was just on Finlay and BMitch and he said he thinks the team will try to find a QB to grow with this team and defense. He threw out Darnold as a non-draft option but insinuated the draft. AND he said it would make sense to target a non-1st round QB so it takes some of the pressure off to deliver immediately. Threw out Kyle Trask. But he also aluded to finding your Wilson/Dak in the mid rounds and that it might not be this year. Keep trying until you nail the pick/position, because getting a good QB on a rookie contract is key to winning a Super Bowl, and this team isn't competing for one this year, though he thinks they could in the next 3-5 years with the right rookie QB.

 

A lot of paraphrasing there on my part, but that was the gist of their conversation.

Edited March 5, 2021 by JamesMadisonSkins

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Thinking Skins said:

The thing is you pick your poison. Do you want to spend the time and resources to pick a first round QB who is not going to sign a second contract, or do you want to sign a former first rounder coming off their first contract, already had some development done with the first staff. Maybe not there yet but maybe closer than a rookie would be. Or there is the option of drafting a 3rd or 4th rounder and seeing what happens. The FA choice allows you to even do both, whereas when you draft a first rounder he's normally the starter and you look for a lesser backup to not upend your first rounder and don't generally draft a lower round pick because you don't want him to threaten your first rounder. 

 

The FA choices usually aren't that good.  In those cases, you are typically picking the dudes who have failed as first rounders and hope that the past isn't prologue for them.  Once you have a sample size of medicority and or failure it usually (granted albeit not always) doesn't lead to future success. 

Edited March 5, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[Koolblue13]

5 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

Michael Phillips from the RIchmond Times Dispatch was just on Finlay and BMitch and he said he thinks the team will try to find a QB to grow with this team and defense. He threw out Darnold as a non-draft option but insinuated the draft. AND he said it would make sense to target a non-1st round QB so it takes some of the pressure off to deliver immediately. Threw out Kyle Trask. But he also aluded to finding your Wilson/Dak in the mid rounds and that it might not be this year. Keep trying until you nail the pick/position, because getting a good QB on a rookie contract is key to winning a Super Bowl, and this team isn't competing for one this year, though he thinks they could in the next 3-5 years with the right rookie QB.

 

A lot of paraphrasing there on my part, but that was the gist of their conversation.

This is what I have been saying. They built a solid team and then brought in a young QB who had a full machine around him. That's the way to do it.