|
kiimo posted:The Chiefs trading a first round pick, likely to be at the end of the round next year and a third for a franchise quarterback is absolutely not overpaying. I know you're basking in the afterglow of actually trying to draft a quarterback (I am too), but that 'franchise QB' part of things is very much to be determined.
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
But isn't that the point? I mean I know one way to not have a franchise quarterback. Stay at 27 and draft a linebacker. And then do it again next year. You have to make a move and they finally did. Anyone saying gosh I don't know about what you paid...I mean I think that's a valid argument for the Bears moving up one spot and taking a guy the 49ers might not have even taken. But moving up 17 spots in front of a team that already came out and said they would have taken him there you don't argue with that. I'm not saying Mahomes is a guarantee, he's a risk for sure. I won't even get mad if he busts. I'm just so relieved that they swung for the fences for once. This is the first time I've had long term hope since...Rich Gannon?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:The problem is that history doesn't validate this--teams that trade up to get a QB haven't been successful historically. This just feels like a sample size problem. I don't see how trading up to get a QB can somehow be intrinsically bad. Trading up for another position, like WR or DE is fine, but not a QB? It doesn't past the smell test.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
I think people are judgmental of trading up for a QB this year because the class was seen as weak. But there's always an element of chance in this poo poo anyway. Some 1st pick QBs bust, some undrafted guys become starters. Some suffer horrible injuries, some mentally check out of the game. You're never going to know if you made the right move until 4-5 years down the road. So we can laugh about it now, but it's likely that one of these QBs will shine, a couple will bust, and those who guess right get to say Told you so. Also, the Packers cut every RB that wasn't Ty Montgomery to make room for their draft class.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
I guess it depends on what you mean by success. Because "franchise quarterbacks" are few and far between. Wentz looks good. Philly traded up for him. RG3 was looking real good before he kept breaking himself like a drat fool. Gabbert and Sanchez didn't. Atlanta traded up for Vick, he was definitely a franchise QB even if he had big time issues. And then Ryan Leaf. Goff is still jury out.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
Jared Goff probably smells like a paper mill.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
Jiminy Christmas! Shoes! posted:This just feels like a sample size problem. I don't see how trading up to get a QB can somehow be intrinsically bad. Trading up for another position, like WR or DE is fine, but not a QB? It doesn't past the smell test. It's not that it's intrinsically bad, but what it signals--typically you're talking about trading up into the top 5 spots, which already requires a ton of picks, but you're also more likely to get fleeced by a team willing to trade down that *knows* you need a QB. And comparatively, if you need a QB really badly, you're probably in a much worse place than if you need a top WR really bad (you probably already have your franchise QB), so the cost weighs more heavily, because your team probably needed the extra picks to build around your QB. kiimo posted:I guess it depends on what you mean by success. Because "franchise quarterbacks" are few and far between. Wentz looks good. Philly traded up for him. RG3 was looking real good before he kept breaking himself like a drat fool. Gabbert and Sanchez didn't. Atlanta traded up for Vick, he was definitely a franchise QB even if he had big time issues. And then Ryan Leaf. Goff is still jury out. Technically Eli and maaaybe Vick. Jury's still out on Wentz, and his cost was partially offset by trading Bradford. Abugadu posted:I think people are judgmental of trading up for a QB this year because the class was seen as weak. But there's always an element of chance in this poo poo anyway. Some 1st pick QBs bust, some undrafted guys become starters. Some suffer horrible injuries, some mentally check out of the game. You're never going to know if you made the right move until 4-5 years down the road. Sure but the problem is that the risk is close to the same for most of the top prospects, it's the cost that changes. How much better is Trubisky than Mahomes? Than Watson? Than Dobbs? Is he a 2nd, two 3rds and a 4th better? If Trubisky is a bust, it's going to hurt much more than if someone else had traded up and the Bears had to settle for their second choice. And by giving up those extra picks, the chances that he'll be a bust because you were worse off adding cheap talent to the team goes up a little bit. You pay these costs longer than you think; Atlanta definitely felt the costs of the Julio Jones trade. Same for Washington and RG3, even though they lucked into Cousins. In the salary cap era, particularly the post-rookie-pay-scale era, the easiest way to build a superior team is to take advantage of rookie contracts and have guys outpay their costs.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
Abugadu posted:I think people are judgmental of trading up for a QB this year because the class was seen as weak. But there's always an element of chance in this poo poo anyway. Some 1st pick QBs bust, some undrafted guys become starters. Some suffer horrible injuries, some mentally check out of the game. You're never going to know if you made the right move until 4-5 years down the road. So we can laugh about it now, but it's likely that one of these QBs will shine, a couple will bust, and those who guess right get to say Told you so. People are judgemental about trading up for a QB because it's worked once in the last three decades
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
But it's been done like what 10 times total? TheChirurgeon posted:It's not that it's intrinsically bad, but what it signals--typically you're talking about trading up into the top 5 spots, which already requires a ton of picks, but you're also more likely to get fleeced by a team willing to trade down that *knows* you need a QB. And comparatively, if you need a QB really badly, you're probably in a much worse place than if you need a top WR really bad (you probably already have your franchise QB), so the cost weighs more heavily, because your team probably needed the extra picks to build around your QB. Yeah I guess I'm all about it because none of this applies to the Chiefs, they have one of the best rosters in the NFL top to bottom. Their needs were like an edge rusher, a linebacker and a running back and they had ten picks. Ten guys wouldn't even fit on the roster. It was the perfect year to do it.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
Jiminy Christmas! Shoes! posted:This just feels like a sample size problem. I don't see how trading up to get a QB can somehow be intrinsically bad. Trading up for another position, like WR or DE is fine, but not a QB? It doesn't past the smell test. It has an internal logic. If you're trading up, you're either packaging up a lot of picks that year, or picks next year - usually, at least a first-rounder. So your QB will spend his early years with a weaker team around him than he otherwise would. He may get sacked much more because the line is bad. He may have no good running game to lean on to keep other teams honest. His recievers may be Brady-level. Any or all of those things can make it so a QB's career never really takes off, and he never succeeds where he might have in a better situation. Or he just may seem worse than he is and get canned in favor of the next prospect by the next coach. So all things being equal, a QB that wasn't traded up for may work out better than a QB that was. That may or may not be the case, but it passes the smell test.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
The flip side is that quarterback is a much more important position than any other on the roster. And if your organization can successfully identify a franchise quarterback it is worth sacrificing in the short term for the long term gain of having that player. That fact that it's only worked out once or twice - with few teams even trying - is incidental and speaks more to the difficulty in finding a worthy quarterback.
Impossibly Perfect Sphere fucked around with this message at 02:11 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
Trubisky will be washed out of the league in 5 years.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
beejay posted:Trubisky will be washed out of the league in 5 years. Nah he'll bounce around at the very latest. poo poo Jimmy Clausen can still get work. We really overestimate just how useful even a competent QB is. I mean poo poo some teams don't even have a guy that can run practice.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
kiimo posted:I mean I know one way to not have a franchise quarterback. Stay at 27 and draft a linebacker. And then do it again next year. You have to make a move and they finally did. But teams in recent years have found their franchise quarterbacks picking at the end of the first or later? Cousins, Wilson, Carr, Bridgewater (assuming his leg didn't explode), Prescott... Over that same period you've had Luck, Winston, Tannehill, Mariota and Wentz (giving him the benefit of the doubt here) taken early in the first. So about as many late round guys who worked out as very early first round picks, and of those pretty much all of them except Tannehill and maybe Wentz were much more highly regarded than the current QB class.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:He may get sacked much more because the line is bad. Welcome to your future, Deshaun
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
It is worth noting that the majority of the starting quarterbacks in the league were drafted in the first round, and nearly half of them were top-ten picks. There's definitely a lot of value to picking early, and I can't fault the Chiefs for trading up if they think there's a real shot of developing Mahone into a long-term starter, where the loss of a handful of draftpicks can be more easily swallowed over the long term. bears though
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
Excluding Goff and Wentz - it's too early for any conclusions - there have been FIVE trade ups for QB's in the last two decade. Five! 2012, RG3 - RG3 was ruined by injuries, his own ego and a feud between the coach and owner. Had he continued on the trajectory set by his rookie season Washington would have been thrilled with what they gave up. 2011, Gabbart - Just an awful player. Obviously not helped by his supporting cast, but I don't think one 2nd round pick would have saved Blaine loving Gabbert's career. 2009, Sanchez - Considering the talent on that roster when he was drafted, and the way they dragged his butt to multiple playoff appearances you cannot blame his failure on missing pieces. 2001, Vick - Sure Vick needs weapons. He also needs to take being a quarterback seriously and not murder dogs. 1998, Leaf - Insane person. It's absurd to draw any conclusions from those five guys, who success or failure were affected by a variety of factors far beyond what their teams gave up to get them.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
For the record, here's where each of last year's starting QBs was taken: Top ten picks: Caron Palmer, Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, Alex Smith, Marcus Mariota, Matt Stafford, Ryan Tannehill, Matt Ryan, Sam Bradford, Cam Newton, Andrew Luck, Blake Bortles, Jameis Winston, Jared Goff, Carson Wentz Other First Round Picks: Aaron Rodgers, Joe Flacco, Ben Roethlisberger, Jay Cutler Second Round: Derek Carr, Andy Dalton, Colin Kaepernick, Drew Brees Third Round: Russel Wilson, Cody Kessler Fourth Round: Dak Prescott, Kirk Cousins Sixth Round: Tom Brady, Trevor Siemian 7th Round: Ryan Fitzpatrick So yeah, it's pretty apparent that after the first round, talent drops off really quickly. You can try and find a diamond in the rough, but chances are the next big generational talent is gonna be picked in the first, not the third. Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 02:47 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
Picking a dude in the first round doesn't magic them into a good player though unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
Looking at current starting QBs isn't a good way to do it. You want to look at the picks, and evaluate what percent of them worked out.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
Why do you have Brees listed as a first
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
I don't understand why more teams don't sign other teams' backups and have them become pro bowlers smh
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
Intruder posted:Why do you have Brees listed as a first Because the loving Wikipedia list I was using to sort them is garbage  (It also lists Matt Cassel as the Titan's starting QB )evilweasel posted:Looking at current starting QBs isn't a good way to do it. You want to look at the picks, and evaluate what percent of them worked out. You're definitely not wrong-a huge number of picks don't work out for one reason or another. I just thought it was interesting that, of the quarterbacks starting today, the majority were selected in the first round (Though the fact that many of them have been in the league for a while by this point probably skews the numbers a bit)
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
hahahaha, metapod your team could've had it all....quote:At one point discussion turned to the rest of the first round. Peters heard reliably that Kansas City, picking 27th, was moving way up to Tennessee at five. Presumably for a quarterback. “I hear it’s for a one, two, four and next year’s one,” Shanahan said. “They offered that to Tennessee.” I admit I probably would've been blown away by Dorsey making that trade. I guess if you're 100% certain that Mahomes is going to be a franchise QB, then do it. But if you're rolling the dice? : stare: http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2017/..._source=twitter
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
Mahomes at 5 would have been  I'm glad it didn't happen not just to reduce the Titans draft capital but also because the Texans probably would have panicked and traded up into the top 10
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
I remember reading a stat where a 1st round QB had a 50/50 chance of being a good player 2nd round on was like 10%
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:I remember reading a stat where a 1st round QB had a 50/50 chance of being a good player From the late 80's until like 2010 it was obscenely low, but since then it's been 50/50. 2-36 Derek Carr 2-35 Andy Dalton 2-36 Colin Kaepernick 2-62 Jimmy Garoppolo (?) and you can toss in Teddy Bridgewater since he was 1-32, and you should probably count everyone after like the 20th pick as roughly this quality... Misses: 2-51 Christian Hackenberg 2-39 Geno Smith 2-57 Brock Osweiler Using the above criteria, you get to add the Browns duo as misses, to pair with the Jets whiffs. Compared to 1st rounders: Hits: 1-2 Carson Wentz (maybe, Eagles fans sure are defensive about him) 1-1 Jameis Winston (probably) 1-2 Marcus Mariota (probably) 1-32 Teddy Bridgewater 1-1 Andrew Luck 1-8 Ryan Tannehill 1-1 Cam Newton Misses: 1-1 Jared Goff (probably) 1-3 Blake Bortles (probably) 1-16 EJ Manuel 1-22 Manziel 1-2 RG3 1-22 Brandon Weeden 1-8 Jake Locker 1-10 Blaine Gabbert 1-12 Christian Ponder So even if we drop the guys from above and split all the who knows(?) we're still looking at a worse hit rate due to... what honestly feels like desperation reaches by teams. Kalli fucked around with this message at 03:39 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
Hey now, how can you judge Hackenberg when he's only entering his second year and hasn't played? lmao at my own stupid argument.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:Hey now, how can you judge Hackenberg when he's only entering his second year and hasn't played? choose from 1. the jets drafted him 2. the jets can't have nice things 3. because mcmagic
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
I'm not sure Jimmy G counts as a "good player" unless you mean "at the very least seems like an adequate back up," which isn't the standard we should be using.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
I still can't believe Tebow went in the first.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
JIZZ DENOUEMENT posted:I still can't believe Tebow went in the first. Tebow knocked the Steelers out of the playoffs in a hilarious fashion so the Broncos spent that pick wisely imho 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
King Hong Kong posted:I'm not sure Jimmy G counts as a "good player" unless you mean "at the very least seems like an adequate back up," which isn't the standard we should be using. Tom Brady was an adequate backup to Drew Bledsoe and then took over. Aaron Rodgers was an adequate backup until the Packers let Favre go. Jimmy G played 4 games of "Not Suck" which is more than Manziel can say.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
CannonFodder posted:Tom Brady was an adequate backup to Drew Bledsoe and then took over. Aaron Rodgers was an adequate backup until the Packers let Favre go. Lol if you don't draft your backup and he takes over the starter position by being awesome.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
CannonFodder posted:Aaron Rodgers was an adequate backup until the Packers let Favre go. Weren't there reports from Packers training camp, preseason, and practice in '06 and '07 that Rodgers was vastly outperforming Favre and it wasn't even close? I swore I read a thing about that somewhere.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
Keith Atherton posted:Tebow knocked the Steelers out of the playoffs in a hilarious fashion so the Broncos spent that pick wisely imho I lost so much money on a dumb loving prop bet on Tebow completing 11 passes. Son of a bitch wins on the 10th completion in overtime. Every time that game gets brought up I relive that moment.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
Bad Moon posted:Lol if you don't draft your backup and he takes over the starter position by being awesome. Chromatic posted:Weren't there reports from Packers training camp, preseason, and practice in '06 and '07 that Rodgers was vastly outperforming Favre and it wasn't even close? I swore I read a thing about that somewhere. Oh, and all of the concussions.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
I like how the Niners had two of the first round busts on the roster last season. Ponder showed enough in the preseason that he should have gotten at least a courtesy start. I hate myself for saying that. I hate Jed York more.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
They drafted two more first round busts this year
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
CannonFodder posted:Panthers prefer to go 1-15 before drafting marquee players. And during Cam's rookie season the entire defense was injured so they got to draft Kuechly at like 5. Two great 1st round picks. Nah, Favre was clean when Rodgers was around
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 06:03
|
|
