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

[Warhead36]

7 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Kyle better hit on that QB or else he will be fired like his daddy. He’s only had one good season.

Jones is good enough that they'll still win with him, especially since the roster is so strong already, but man Shanny is kinda screwing himself here because if he coaches a super talent like Lance or Fields it could be 2012 RG3 2.0.

[Darth Tater]

Don't see any QB reasonably available that is worth it to us via a trade-up. Fields, maybe, since I have a bias against OSU QBs that began with Art Schlichter that may color my opinion but he may not be available to us anyway.

[88Comrade2000]

If we don’t Fields or Lance; then if we do draft a QB in Round 2 or 3, I hope we get lucky. By lucky, meaning we get a long term starter like Wilson, Montana or Brady.

[RWJ]

34 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

If we don’t Fields or Lance; then if we do draft a QB in Round 2 or 3, I hope we get lucky. By lucky, meaning we get a long term starter like Wilson, Montana or Brady.

Mills in the 3rd would be a steal, I think. He can sit and learn behind Fitz.

[mistertim]

2 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said:

If we don’t Fields or Lance; then if we do draft a QB in Round 2 or 3, I hope we get lucky. By lucky, meaning we get a long term starter like Wilson, Montana or Brady.

 

Those guys aren't long term starters. They're HoFers (or future HoFers in Wilson and Brady). That wouldn't be getting lucky, that would be winning a $100 million lottery.

[Thinking Skins]

On 4/26/2021 at 1:38 PM, The Consigliere said:

I'm not arguing there aren't exceptions, I'm arguing that the vast bulk of the hits occur on day 1, and especially on day 1 and day 2. It doesn't mean you can't find a Dak, or a Cousins, a Romo or a Brady, every once in a while they hit, but are so damn rare that it doesn't make sense to build a strategy around it, especially regarding day 3/UDFA's. The sheer quantity of QB's taken there versus the actual hits over time are staggering, most of those guys never even take a snap to kill off the clock in a blowout, let alone build a career as a backup, let alone a starter, let alone an elite starter. 

This is the conversation I always have on this board and while you are right in the vaccuum of looking at drafting QBs, the question becomes can we build a team and compete if we are willing to invest those first rounders into more NFL ready players or even trading down for more picks instead of just drafting QBs. You mention the top QB classes, and there are some good ones but even those ones you have to question of whether it is better to go with a gamble first round pick like Tribusky (not even mentioning where in the  first he was drafted just that he was an inexperienced QB when they could have gone for any position on the board, not to mention the other QBs. Same with Darnold argument. Sure they needed a QB, but the argument about BPA is always about not letting needs direct your pick. If the best player on the board is a LB, then you take him because it improves the team. 

 

Then we can talk about the other half of your stuff. The question is why are first round picks starting so much? The answer is because they are given much more room for failure than anybody else. I talk with @Skinsinparadise all the time about this (and he jokes about my love for the UDFA and low round QBs) but we don't see a Brett Rypken or CJ Beathard or heck even Drew Lock given the chances that some of these first round QBs are given. Many times they are put into a backup position (as opposed to first rounders being given the starting job) and have to get extremely lucky (like the starter getting hurt or playing extremely poorly) just to see time early on. So we as fans have little understanding of how good they are until they see time except maybe in preseason and how valued is preseason? We can't even see preseason stats for these lower round QBs. 

 

I still think that you build a legit team (i.e. keeping your picks and drafting the BPA) and you can have a lower round QB step in and play well with a solid team around them. One thing about team building philosophy is that the more you build it around one player (like the QB), the more limited I think those teams are in the playoffs because they are playing elite defenses whose job becomes to simply stop that QB. I look at teams that win the SB and sure we're seeing elite QB play but we also generally see elite defense. Tampa was able to shut down Brees, Rogers and Mahomes and win it all. Sure they had Brady but that defense is what deserves the credit. And really that's been a staple of his career. Same with Seattle. Same with Pittsburgh. Same with the Giants when they won. On the other side, look at a lot of the teams that were built around the QB, like GB and you see that they constantly hit a wall because all it takes is that QB having one bad game in the playoffs (or getting injured in the regular season) and its all over. Defense travels. 

[Skinsinparadise]

12 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

This is the conversation I always have on this board and while you are right in the vaccuum of looking at drafting QBs, the question becomes can we build a team and compete if we are willing to invest those first rounders into more NFL ready players or even trading down for more picks instead of just drafting QBs. You mention the top QB classes, and there are some good ones but even those ones you have to question of whether it is better to go with a gamble first round pick like Tribusky (not even mentioning where in the  first he was drafted just that he was an inexperienced QB when they could have gone for any position on the board, not to mention the other QBs. Same with Darnold argument. Sure they needed a QB, but the argument about BPA is always about not letting needs direct your pick. If the best player on the board is a LB, then you take him because it improves the team. 

 

Then we can talk about the other half of your stuff. The question is why are first round picks starting so much? The answer is because they are given much more room for failure than anybody else. I talk with @Skinsinparadise all the time about this (and he jokes about my love for the UDFA and low round QBs) but we don't see a Brett Rypken or CJ Beathard or heck even Drew Lock given the chances that some of these first round QBs are given. Many times they are put into a backup position (as opposed to first rounders being given the starting job) and have to get extremely lucky (like the starter getting hurt or playing extremely poorly) just to see time early on. So we as fans have little understanding of how good they are until they see time except maybe in preseason and how valued is preseason? We can't even see preseason stats for these lower round QBs. 

 

I still think that you build a legit team (i.e. keeping your picks and drafting the BPA) and you can have a lower round QB step in and play well with a solid team around them. One thing about team building philosophy is that the more you build it around one player (like the QB), the more limited I think those teams are in the playoffs because they are playing elite defenses whose job becomes to simply stop that QB. I look at teams that win the SB and sure we're seeing elite QB play but we also generally see elite defense. Tampa was able to shut down Brees, Rogers and Mahomes and win it all. Sure they had Brady but that defense is what deserves the credit. And really that's been a staple of his career. Same with Seattle. Same with Pittsburgh. Same with the Giants when they won. On the other side, look at a lot of the teams that were built around the QB, like GB and you see that they constantly hit a wall because all it takes is that QB having one bad game in the playoffs (or getting injured in the regular season) and its all over. Defense travels. 

 

It feels to me based on your posts that you feel like a SB is a silly fantasy and your goal is simpler which is to be relevant.  7-9, 9-7, etc is fine.  Just don't stink. 

 

Sort of like the peak Gruden years.  Please correct me if I am wrong.   But if that's what you are trying to do.  Then heck yeah build yourself a roster, and a dude like Andy Dalton is more than fine.  

Edited April 30, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[Thinking Skins]

7 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

It feels to me based on your posts that you feel like a SB is a silly fantasy and your goal is simpler which is to be relevant.  7-9, 9-7, etc is fine.  Just don't stink. 

 

Sort of like the peak Gruden years.  Please correct me if I am wrong.   But if that's what you are trying to do.  Then heck yeah build yourself a roster, and a dude like Andy Dalton is more than fine.  

Nah, SB is always my ultimate goal. I just think that while we're building a SB team we can go 8-8 which I'd like better than 3-13. Sure 3-13 gets us closer to the top of the draft where we can maybe land the next superstar QB, but I don't really believe in superstar QBs being the end all be all, that's kinda my main philosophy. I think that lower round QBs aren't given the chances that first rounders are. I think that if they were, there'd still be a higher percentage of first round successes, but you wouldn't be laughed at for thinking of drafting a QB outside of the first. 

 

On top of the stuff I mentioned above, there is generally a QB every year that's a non-first round QB who comes in and looks good. But what's 1 a year vs the number drafted? Nothing. But it does raise the question of what if more of these guys are given more chances, or what if (Hurts, Allen, Minshew, Hodges, Lock, Mullens, Beathard, Brissett, etc) are kept as the starting QBs after they played well for a small stretch and hit a hiccup. 

[Skinsinparadise]

Just now, Thinking Skins said:

Nah, SB is always my ultimate goal. I just think that while we're building a SB team we can go 8-8 which I'd like better than 3-13. Sure 3-13 gets us closer to the top of the draft where we can maybe land the next superstar QB, but I don't really believe in superstar QBs being the end all be all, that's kinda my main philosophy. I think that lower round QBs aren't given the chances that first rounders are. I think that if they were, there'd still be a higher percentage of first round successes, but you wouldn't be laughed at for thinking of drafting a QB outside of the first. 

 

On top of the stuff I mentioned above, there is generally a QB every year that's a non-first round QB who comes in and looks good. But what's 1 a year vs the number drafted? Nothing. But it does raise the question of what if more of these guys are given more chances, or what if (Hurts, Allen, Minshew, Hodges, Lock, Mullens, Beathard, Brissett, etc) are kept as the starting QBs after they played well for a small stretch and hit a hiccup. 

 

Ok cool but if SB is the goal, I am not into a treading water type QB in the draft.  If I am doing that use FA. 

 

I forgot what you do but if I recall it has something to do with math/stats?  Eons ago I ta'd stats in college.  I forgot much of what I knew then but I retain much of the philiosophy behind it and i work in a professional which uses stats all the time even though i am not the one crunching the numbers.

 

You seem to ignore the odds when it comes to Qbs and players just in general and try to explain the anamolies/outliers as being more of the norm than we give it credit for.  It surprises me coming from someone who has math as a major component to their work.  

 

I argue with some of the numbers only group on the draft thread all the time.  So I am not a slave to numbers.  But the outliers are outliers for a reason.  For every Russell Willson there are a zillion Davis Webbs.   Yeah I can come up with an emotional explanation for why I will be the guy to win the lottery but it feels just that about emotion more than logic.

 

I do think that at times that a team might have an inkling that a QB is special and other teams are missing the boat.  And if the team feels strongly about it, then go for it.  But it doesn't feel to me that every team has a good chance in every draft to pull a Russell Wilson.  Now if its a Nick Mullens type?  Sure why not.  But the reason those players don't tend to excel IMO isn't that they don't get enough rope but more that they aren't oozing with talent from the jump.  

[Est.1974]

So was the Rodgers to Denver, as good as a ‘done deal’, from yesterday BS ?

[Thinking Skins]

2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

You seem to ignore the odds when it comes to Qbs and players just in general and try to explain the anamolies/outliers as being more of the norm than we give it credit for.  It surprises me coming from someone who has math as a major component to their work.  

 

I argue with some of the numbers only group on the draft thread all the time.  So I am not a slave to numbers.  But the outliers are outliers for a reason.  For every Russell Willson there are a zillion Davis Webbs.   Yeah I can come up with an emotional explanation for why I will be the guy to win the lottery but it feels just that about emotion more than logic.

Yeah I'm a mathematician. One thing is that the numbers tend to lie, depending on what you're looking at and what question you ask. That's one of the reason I'm not a fan of pure analytics (and I'm a guy who has presented on NFL analytics stuff at the MIT Sloan conference). But just because an analytic says that teams that go for it on 4th down tend to make it 65% of the time, it doesn't mean that THIS 4th and 1 in the 4th quarter of a playoff game against the number 1 defense in the league at the 46 yard line, down 3, against an MVP level QB is the right decision. And when the analytic is wrong, the coach will get fired if he just says "but the analytic says to go for it in this case" just like we laughed at Rivera for going for it on the 2 point conversion against the Giants where stats say that its advantageous to go for them. 

 

But for the QB stuff, QB is never in a vacuum. Its a question of building the best team. If we had all pros at all the other positions, sure we should draft a QB in the first. But if we can get a game changing LT or LB or CB or WR, then its a cost benefit analysis of who is more important. And some of these same stats that say how much better the QB is in the first vs other rounds say that other positions (particularly OL and LT) are much safer picks than QB. In fact QB is the LEAST safe pick in the first round. So we are not going to build a team if we keep wasting valuable capital on QBs who are not successful. LB / TE / OT / S / C all have a bust rate thats half that of QBs. (40% bust rate for QBs vs about 20 for the other positions). 

 

And you mention above that the draft isn't the only option. We can also just sign a QB in free agency. Its unlikely to be an all pro, but FA QBs have been guys who have gone from one team to another either as proven vets, or young QBs whose first contract expired and these are much safer options to build around than a risky first rounder. Sure they may not have the upside of a Lawrence or Burrow, but they also don't have the risk of a Darnold or a Daniel Jones or these other QBs who are taken in the first who may have it all or may not. Plus if we sign a FA qb (like Fitz and Heinicke) and draft a lower round QB (like Mond or Mills or Trask) we can just have a competition in camp and nobody's mad if their favorite guy doesn't win. That's not true if we draft a first round QB and he's not the starter (see Haskins). 

[Skinsinparadise]

8 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

But for the QB stuff, QB is never in a vacuum. Its a question of building the best team. If we had all pros at all the other positions, sure we should draft a QB in the first. But if we can get a game changing LT or LB or CB or WR, then its a cost benefit analysis of who is more important. And some of these same stats that say how much better the QB is in the first vs other rounds say that other positions (particularly OL and LT) are much safer picks than QB. In fact QB is the LEAST safe pick in the first round. So we are not going to build a team if we keep wasting valuable capital on QBs who are not successful. LB / TE / OT / S / C all have a bust rate thats half that of QBs. (40% bust rate for QBs vs about 20 for the other positions). 

 

 

The debate of what's the safer position to draft as for odds of success is a seperate discussion though I agree it has some relevance but it doesn't play to my overriding point which is the odds you are going to blow your late round QB pick is absurdly high.   But I'll play with your logic for your point below

 

8 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

And you mention above that the draft isn't the only option. We can also just sign a QB in free agency. Its unlikely to be an all pro, but FA QBs have been guys who have gone from one team to another either as proven vets, or young QBs whose first contract expired and these are much safer options to build around than a risky first rounder. 

 

If the math is bad for first round QBs its ridiculously worse for dudes after the first round.   So if you are going for a jag/passable type QB, you are not only more likely to find that guy in FA -- you don't also have to waste a draft pick to do it.  You above all should appreciate that because you like to highlight late rounders.

 

8 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

 Sure they may not have the upside of a Lawrence or Burrow, but they also don't have the risk of a Darnold or a Daniel Jones 

 

The upside is the operative point.  To me it doesn't fit "sure but...".  The upside is the key.  Daniel Jones IMO didn't have much upside -- I don't think he's a good example, that was the Giants trying to ironically go safe. 

Edited April 30, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[Thinking Skins]

4 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

If the math is bad for first round QBs its ridiculously worse for dudes after the first round.   So if you are going for a jag/passable type QB, you are not only more likely to find that guy in FA -- you don't also have to waste a draft pick to do it.  You above all should appreciate that because you like to highlight late rounders.

 

I agree with this but its more about what Ron was saying all offseason - competition. Basically what's gone on here for years (?decades?) is that one QB after another has been given the starting QB job, or faced a meh competition. The only real competition was between Cousins, Griffin and McCoy and our low round pick rose to the top and beat out the former rookie of the year. We signed Smith and I wish we had drafted Rudolph do develop behind him. We had Brunell and didn't want Ramsey. But Brunell never competed with anybody for that starting spot. Neither did Campbell when he got it. I guess you could say the Ramsey / Woefull / Matthews thing was a competition but I forget. 

 

That's why I'm looking forward to this offseason. Hopefully its a real competition instead of just giving the job to Fitz. 

[bearrock]

2 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

And you mention above that the draft isn't the only option. We can also just sign a QB in free agency. Its unlikely to be an all pro, but FA QBs have been guys who have gone from one team to another either as proven vets, or young QBs whose first contract expired and these are much safer options to build around than a risky first rounder. Sure they may not have the upside of a Lawrence or Burrow, but they also don't have the risk of a Darnold or a Daniel Jones or these other QBs who are taken in the first who may have it all or may not. Plus if we sign a FA qb (like Fitz and Heinicke) and draft a lower round QB (like Mond or Mills or Trask) we can just have a competition in camp and nobody's mad if their favorite guy doesn't win. That's not true if we draft a first round QB and he's not the starter (see Haskins). 

 

FA QBs leading team to SB is not a common occurrence either, especially so if we're not considering the HOF signing at the end of career situations.  And signing a good FA QB comes with a steep cost in salary cap space.  At the end of the day, you have to get your value bargain somewhere.  Unless they are getting a vet QB capable of a SB run in the next 2-3 years the choice boils down to:

 

1) pay the defense and get a rookie QB

2) pay the defense and hope to get a vet QB for value cap cost

3) let key defensive pieces go and build value back up

 

Imo, option 1 is the best way because years 1-5 of a high performing rookie QB is the best value in the NFL right now (then even two years of franchise tag represents fair value).  Plus, we already have a very good defense with holes in positions that are perfectly addressable in FA at very reasonable cost.

 

But rookie QBs don't come into the league being ready lead SB runs unless you're Tom Brady or Russell Wilson (close anyway).  They need 2-3 years to get there.  Which means that the longer you push selecting a rookie QB, the bigger risk you run of this defensive core aging out (and no room for resetting if the rookie is a dud).  That's why I was disappointed that they didn't pay the cost to move up for Fields now (although I thought Davis is a fine selection in a vacuum).  Year 2 of a rebuild was the perfect opportunity to get a QB.  Not only because of timing, but you typically don't see a QB1-2 caliber player drop to late top 10.  In the next few years, unless we have another year like this, it will be far more expensive to move into the top 5 that you usually need to get QB 1-2 in a draft, sometimes outright impossible (for example, no one would've been able to move for Lawrence or Wilson this year unless the haul was just stupid).

 

This defense was already top 5.  How much will a good or great LB add vs a good to great QB play? (considering that our QB play across the board last year save for a game here and there was a dumpster fire).  With a very good QB play, this team gave TB as hard a time as GB and NO (arguably harder).  That was with our top two offensive weapons being gimpy.

[Thinking Skins]

3 minutes ago, bearrock said:

FA QBs leading team to SB is not a common occurrence either, especially so if we're not considering the HOF signing at the end of career situations.  And signing a good FA QB comes with a steep cost in salary cap space.  At the end of the day, you have to get your value bargain somewhere.  Unless they are getting a vet QB capable of a SB run in the next 2-3 years the choice boils down to:

 

1) pay the defense and get a rookie QB

2) pay the defense and hope to get a vet QB for value cap cost

3) let key defensive pieces go and build value back up

 

Imo, option 1 is the best way because years 1-5 of a high performing rookie QB is the best value in the NFL right now (then even two years of franchise tag represents fair value).  Plus, we already have a very good defense with holes in positions that are perfectly addressable in FA at very reasonable cost.

 

I don't disagree here but I stand by it being a trade off. So you can either get the elite QB prospect or the elite OL prospect but not both. Much higher chance that the QB is a bust than the OL. So would you want an elite OL and a mediocre QB or a mediocre OL and a possibly elite QB? 

 

While there aren't a lot of QBs who were free agents who took teams to the SB, there are the Alex Smith (to KC) stories where he comes in and takes them to the playoffs, same with Rivers to Indy or Manning to Denver, Fitz to Dolphins, Warner to Cardinals, etc. But I like the Tannehill type story to Tennessee. Sure it doesn't happen often but I think he's basically the same QB he was in Miami, but just on a much MUCH better team with a defense and a running game. He has also developed. But why am I bringing him up since he was a first rounder? Only because I think he needed more time and it goes towards my argument that the lower round QBs aren't given the time to develop in the limelight that starting QBs get which I think is why we don't see as many of them succeed. 

[bearrock]

2 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

I don't disagree here but I stand by it being a trade off. So you can either get the elite QB prospect or the elite OL prospect but not both. Much higher chance that the QB is a bust than the OL. So would you want an elite OL and a mediocre QB or a mediocre OL and a possibly elite QB? 

 

I think you and I are more similar in mindset than not and I can see you have a reasonable point.  I do think it's relevant to consider the upside and scarcity as well though, in that homerun QB adds so much more to your team vs a homerun OL and top end OL are must easier to acquire and replace with competent good OL than a top end QB.

 

2 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

While there aren't a lot of QBs who were free agents who took teams to the SB, there are the Alex Smith (to KC) stories where he comes in and takes them to the playoffs, same with Rivers to Indy or Manning to Denver, Fitz to Dolphins, Warner to Cardinals, etc. But I like the Tannehill type story to Tennessee. Sure it doesn't happen often but I think he's basically the same QB he was in Miami, but just on a much MUCH better team with a defense and a running game. He has also developed. But why am I bringing him up since he was a first rounder? Only because I think he needed more time and it goes towards my argument that the lower round QBs aren't given the time to develop in the limelight that starting QBs get which I think is why we don't see as many of them succeed. 

 

I do think the overall impatience with QB is a thing and some people need more time to develop.  Heinicke being an example of a guy who should at least have had a roster spot in the NFL as a capable backup, but being out of the NFL altogether. One, because teams have no patience in bringing along young QBs, and two, there's only so much opportunity a young QB gets to show to make their case, especially if not a high pick.  At the same time, it's also very hard to find successful reclamation projects too because the same factors makes it hard to develop mid round picks makes it hard to invest in and evaluate reclamation projects.  

[Anselmheifer]

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/04/30/a-post-june-1-aaron-rodgers-trade-makes-much-better-sense-for-packers/

 

I'd trade an immense amount for Rodgers if we get to do it after this draft. Load up in the draft. Finish the roster next year in FA. Compete for a super bowl for 3 years while we have this cheap DL. 

[Ball Security]

Panthers picked up the 5th year on Darnold.

[KDawg]

34 minutes ago, Ball Security said:

Panthers picked up the 5th year on Darnold.

 

This should be filed in the, "Most Obvious News of the Cycle" file folder.

 

(Not saying that to you... You're just the messenger  )

[Thinking Skins]

The only problem with picking up the option on Darnold is that it sets a minimum on his salary after the contract. If he comes in and looks good, then he's getting paid 20 mil plus. That's a problem. So it's like he has to be awful or awesome. Anything in between will cause problems and maybe a holdout. 

 

But i hope guys like Darnold and Tribusky do well in their second stints. Heck I hope Teddy looks better on Denver. I wouldn't have been happy about any of those guys but it wouldn't have been much worse than Fitzpatrick other than what we might give up. 

[Renegade7]

Ecstatic we won't be depending on some rookie QB to save us this year. Most excellent.

[Est.1974]

I think the way we are building this roster, 2022 will see Rivera go all in for one the vets which will become available via trade. Maybe earlier.

[Malapropismic Depository]

Looks like it will be Ryanicke at QB

[Dark Acre]

Some people complain about Fitzpatrick being 38 years old (and trust me, one day some of you will wish *you* were 38 years old), but it's not like he's got a lot of gridiron mileage.  He's only been sacked 299 times since his rookie year in 2005.  In comparison, Aaron Rodgers, same draft class, has 468 sacks.  But even if you want to account for hits that aren't sacks and other things that wear a QB out, Fitz only has 41 starts in the last 5 years, and 30 in the last 4.  He's not a guy who's been beaten up a lot.

[Jericho]

20 hours ago, Ball Security said:

Panthers picked up the 5th year on Darnold.

 

Oof! That's basically $19 million guaranteed to a guy that's been one of the worst starters in the league for 3 years running. Fitzpatrick, who's been way better, got only $10 million guaranteed and $12 million total. That's really doubling down on what seems like a very bad move. Maybe it pays off, but I would have just let Darnold play it out and if he was really good, then maybe transition tag him. The difference in salary is only around $4million I believe, with a lot more flexibility. Of course, I would not have given up what they did for Darnold either.