Drafting QB in 1st Round: Bad Idea?

[patchick]

Based on data in this thread I would have to take a QB with every pick in my draft and hopefully finding one that works with the %s being for the 1st rounder.

Seriously, I'm surprised that some team with a bunch of comp picks hasn't done something along these lines -- pick 3 QBs in rounds 4-7, see if any of them look like keepers by the end of camp.

Can you remember any team drafting even 2 quarterbacks in 1 draft? Why the heck not?

 

[makewayhomer]

Seriously, I'm surprised that some team with a bunch of comp picks hasn't done something along these lines -- pick 3 QBs in rounds 4-7, see if any of them look like keepers by the end of camp.

Can you remember any team drafting even 2 quarterbacks in 1 draft? Why the heck not?

seriously? b/c you have a whole bunch of other positions to fill as well

 

[dryheat44]

Seriously, I'm surprised that some team with a bunch of comp picks hasn't done something along these lines -- pick 3 QBs in rounds 4-7, see if any of them look like keepers by the end of camp.

Can you remember any team drafting even 2 quarterbacks in 1 draft? Why the heck not?

If I'm a team with a lot of late-round comp picks, I would absolutely take QBs with all of them.

Giovanni Carmazzi and Tim Rattay for the 49ers comes quickly to mind. Heath Shuler and Gus Frerotte is another one for the Redskins. Patriots took both Tony Eason and Tom Ramsay in 1983.

 

[patchick]

seriously? b/c you have a whole bunch of other positions to fill as well

Of course. But most years you have some teams with 10+ picks, including a ton of day-2 guys who they're not going to count on to contribute. Why not include a lottery ticket or two?

Take the Eagles in 2005, coming off a Superbowl appearance. Strong team with 11 draft picks, so no way do all of them make the team. Not one QB drafted. Or at the opposite end of the spectrum, the 49ers that same year. 10 picks, including Alex Smith at #1. Why not diversify your risk and spend one of your 6 picks in rounds 5-7 on another QB? (Half of the QBs taken there in '05 are still in the league, including Derek Anderson.)

I'm not suggesting it as a routine strategy, just surprised nobody EVER seems to draft multiple QBs given the potential payoff.

 

[fester]

Of course. But most years you have some teams with 10+ picks, including a ton of day-2 guys who they're not going to count on to contribute. Why not include a lottery ticket or two?

I'm not suggesting it as a routine strategy, just surprised nobody EVER seems to draft multiple QBs given the potential payoff.

Pure speculation from me on this point; could it be that rookie QBs that are picked up for anything more than minicamp/OTA spare arms are 'expensive' in terms of coaching and competing for a minimal number of effective reps in training camp? And that the coaching staff only has so much capacity to develop young quarterbacks who are not prime physical specimans to begin with? Again pure speculation but if we are heading down an economic analysis of drafting QBs, I think expanding it to the organizational capacity is a decent question.

 

[makewayhomer]

Pure speculation from me on this point; could it be that rookie QBs that are picked up for anything more than minicamp/OTA spare arms are 'expensive' in terms of coaching and competing for a minimal number of effective reps in training camp? And that the coaching staff only has so much capacity to develop young quarterbacks who are not prime physical specimans to begin with? Again pure speculation but if we are heading down an economic analysis of drafting QBs, I think expanding it to the organizational capacity is a decent question.

you are correct. you have limited time and staff to evaluate players. most teams typically already have 2 QB's with roster spots, and trying to judge 6 or 7 other guys to give 1 or 2 more roster spots is tough. you are probably better off really watching 1 or 2 and making an educated assesment, instead of watching very little of a ton of guys.

if you could keep 100 guys on your roster, then sure it would be worth it to take a bunch of fliers. but the reality is that it doesnt work that way

 

[makewayhomer]

Of course. But most years you have some teams with 10+ picks, including a ton of day-2 guys who they're not going to count on to contribute. Why not include a lottery ticket or two?

Take the Eagles in 2005, coming off a Superbowl appearance. Strong team with 11 draft picks, so no way do all of them make the team. Not one QB drafted. Or at the opposite end of the spectrum, the 49ers that same year. 10 picks, including Alex Smith at #1. Why not diversify your risk and spend one of your 6 picks in rounds 5-7 on another QB? (Half of the QBs taken there in '05 are still in the league, including Derek Anderson.)

I'm not suggesting it as a routine strategy, just surprised nobody EVER seems to draft multiple QBs given the potential payoff.

well, some teams have. also, you need to take fliers on other positions as well.

randall gay, asante samuel, jarvis green, dan koppen, the list goes on and on for late round draft picks who end up making big contributions at other positions. no team is deep enough to ignore needs in other areas. if you think a Center has a 50% chance of making your team, and a QB has a 2% chance, then you need to take the Center.

taking 2 QB's in a draft? sure. taking 4 is reckless though

 

[patchick]

Pure speculation from me on this point; could it be that rookie QBs that are picked up for anything more than minicamp/OTA spare arms are 'expensive' in terms of coaching and competing for a minimal number of effective reps in training camp? And that the coaching staff only has so much capacity to develop young quarterbacks who are not prime physical specimans to begin with? Again pure speculation but if we are heading down an economic analysis of drafting QBs, I think expanding it to the organizational capacity is a decent question.

Very fair point. But most rookie camps have 2-3 QBs including UDFAs, so drafting 2 shouldn't be a strain on resources.

taking 2 QB's in a draft? sure. taking 4 is reckless though

OK, let's say 2. I'm curious: how many times in the 7-round era have teams drafted 2 QBs? I can't think of any off the top of my head, and I can't think of any effective way to search, either!

 

[unoriginal]

Pure speculation from me on this point; could it be that rookie QBs that are picked up for anything more than minicamp/OTA spare arms are 'expensive' in terms of coaching and competing for a minimal number of effective reps in training camp? And that the coaching staff only has so much capacity to develop young quarterbacks who are not prime physical specimans to begin with? Again pure speculation but if we are heading down an economic analysis of drafting QBs, I think expanding it to the organizational capacity is a decent question.

Bingo. It would be almost impossible for a coaching staff to completely evaluate, much less train, more than 2 late-round rookie quarterbacks... especially if you have no veteran quarterbacks on the roster to "mentor," or at least demonstrate through performance.

If you draft too many quarterbacks than you can handle, you'll end up like the Ravens, cutting Derek Anderson. For every young quarterback in camp, you'd need a whole other complete scout team for them to rep against, to say nothing of preseason snaps.

 

[unoriginal]

Very fair point. But most rookie camps have 2-3 QBs including UDFAs, so drafting 2 shouldn't be a strain on resources.

Rookie camps, as Belichick has often said, are simply about preparing rookies for the real training camp.

 

[unoriginal]

Very fair point. But most rookie camps have 2-3 QBs including UDFAs, so drafting 2 shouldn't be a strain on resources.

OK, let's say 2. I'm curious: how many times in the 7-round era have teams drafted 2 QBs? I can't think of any off the top of my head, and I can't think of any effective way to search, either!

In the 7-round era, two teams have drafted 2 QBs in the same year: the Bengals drafted Akili Smith and Scott Covington in 1999, and the Broncos drafted Matt Mauck and Bradlee Van Pelt in 2004.

 

[newton_tom_cat]

so to be clear, if you need a QB, which round are you taking him in? assume this is a normal draft, and you are only going to take 1 QB.

if it's someone in the 1st round i would be extremely certain he's worth it. otherwise i'd look for lower round guys that have been overlooked. guys with at least the necessary physical skills. and a guy that may have been a backup because of playing behind an overhyped qb. from a good school is a plus too, because you wreckon he's smart and works hard. not coincidentally tom brady is the perfect example:

- @ 6'4" 225, strong arm, had the physical skills
- played behind bob griese's kid in college
- went to michigan, one of the best schools in the country

now of course you want find a tom brady every time, but you increase your chances by drafting smart, and you minimize the risk by drafting late. i think that more than anything explains the phenonem of a "barbell" shape to top QB's with some true "can't miss" taken in 1st round, few winners taken in middle rounds, and then another concentration in the late rounds (including undrafted.)

 

[unoriginal]

if it's someone in the 1st round i would be extremely certain he's worth it. otherwise i'd look for lower round guys that have been overlooked. guys with at least the necessary physical skills. and a guy that may have been a backup because of playing behind an overhyped qb. from a good school is a plus too, because you wreckon he's smart and works hard. not coincidentally tom brady is the perfect example:

- @ 6'4" 225, strong arm, had the physical skills
- played behind bob griese's kid in college
- went to michigan, one of the best schools in the country

now of course you want find a tom brady every time, but you increase your chances by drafting smart, and you minimize the risk by drafting late. i think that more than anything explains the phenonem of a "barbell" shape to top QB's with some true "can't miss" taken in 1st round, few winners taken in middle rounds, and then another concentration in the late rounds (including undrafted.)

The only problem with that strategy is that most of the late-round quarterbacks that have had success have had that success with teams that did not draft them.

Trent Green, Derek Anderson, Jeff Blake, and Marc Bulger all were quickly cut by the teams that drafted them.

Stan Humphries and Matt Hasselbeck were both traded by their initial teams. Elvis Grbac was not re-signed as the 49ers' backup.

Only Don Majkowski, Gus Frerotte and Tom Brady have actually panned out for their drafting teams, and only Brady has established lasting success.

 

[unoriginal]

In the 7-round era, two teams have drafted 2 QBs in the same year: the Bengals drafted Akili Smith and Scott Covington in 1999, and the Broncos drafted Matt Mauck and Bradlee Van Pelt in 2004.

*ahem*

Two OTHER teams have drafted 2 quarterbacks in the same year, in addition to the two Dryheat mentioned.

And the 2003 Houstan Texans, who selected Dave Ragone and Drew Henson.

Giovanni Carmazzi and Tim Rattay for the 49ers comes quickly to mind. Heath Shuler and Gus Frerotte is another one for the Redskins. Patriots took both Tony Eason and Tom Ramsay in 1983.

 

[newton_tom_cat]

The only problem with that strategy is that most of the late-round quarterbacks that have had success have had that success with teams that did not draft them.

Trent Green, Derek Anderson, Jeff Blake, and Marc Bulger all were quickly cut by the teams that drafted them.

Stan Humphries and Matt Hasselbeck were both traded by their initial teams. Elvis Grbac was not re-signed as the 49ers' backup.

Only Don Majkowski, Gus Frerotte and Tom Brady have actually panned out for their drafting teams, and only Brady has established lasting success.

pretty simple way to capitalize on it if that's what you think:

- keep the QBs you drafted late
- pickup other teams late drafted QBs that have promise

 

[unoriginal]

I have a pretty simple way to create peace on earth:

- end all wars
- have money grow on trees

I can't believe nobody's tried it yet.

 

[patchick]

pretty simple way to capitalize on it if that's what you think:

- keep the QBs you drafted late
- pickup other teams late drafted QBs that have promise

Er...I don't think the take-home message is that every team should draft a QB in the 7th round then trade with the team to their left! It's that nobody's very accurate in evaluating the long-term potential of rookie QBs after one camp. Which also fits with the comments earlier in the thread that a lot of young QBs benefit from a couple of years on the bench.

 

[makewayhomer]

pretty simple way to capitalize on it if that's what you think:

- keep the QBs you drafted late
- pickup other teams late drafted QBs that have promise

if you have 89 roster spots and everyone else has 53, this would work great!

 

[newton_tom_cat]

if you have 89 roster spots and everyone else has 53, this would work great!

duude, it's one or the other: either keep your promising QB's or if you don't have any look for others. a little imagination and you'd realize they're essentially mutually exclusive, subject to limits on how many QBs a team wants to keep.

 

[unoriginal]

duude, it's one or the other: either keep your promising QB's or if you don't have any look for others. a little imagination and you'd realize they're essentially mutually exclusive, subject to limits on how many QBs a team wants to keep.

Contact Arthur Blank immeadiately. You're wanted in Atlanta.

I look forward to the days of the 5 QB inactive list.