Move on from QBs quickly

2020 Patriots Season:
Upcoming Opponent:
Next Up: N/A

Current Patriots Twitter Feed:
Status
Not open for further replies.

BobDigital

Pro Bowl Player
What is it you hear everyone say about drafting QBs? Develop them slowly, ease them in, give them a few years so you know for sure what you have. Usually year 3 is the make or break year they say. Well I'm here to say this is utter nonsense! The Patriots will not compete for a championship without a great QB.

Instead of listing all the QBs who are HOFers borderline HOFs let's list the ones who aren't. Jim Pucket 2, Eli 2, Theismann 1, McMahon 1, Simms 1, Williams 1, Myriep 1, Dilfer 1, Johnson 1, Flacco 1, Foles 1

That means of the 54 times a QB won a superbowl 13 have been without a very good QB for the era. The QBs run the gauntlet between respectable to bad QBs who just got hot. Of course a few HOF winning QBs weren't amazing either, but they certainly were very good for stretches of their career.

Now with all that said let's get down to the more important issue. If the QBs who are HOFers win, how quickly did they show signs of being that kind of player?

Going in order of oldest to newest. Starr year 2 (mostly sat year 1), Namath year 1, Dawson year 6 (first year starting), Unitas year 1, Staubach year 3 (first yea starting), Bob Griese year 1, Bradshaw year 3, Stabler year 4 (first year starting), Montana year 1, Aikman year 3, Young year 7 (2nd year starting), Farve year 2 (first year starting), Elway year 2, Warner year 2 (first year starting), Brady year 2 (first year starting), Ben year 1, Peyton year 1, Brees year 2 (first year starting), Rodgers year 4 (first year starting), Wilson year 1, Mahomes year 2 (first year starting). Also just to be clear when I say first time starting, I mean for a sustained period of time.

While in the past years were a bit more inconsistent in the more modern game the only QB to truly start slow and then pick it up year 3 was Aikman. As for other QBs who aren't or don't have a good chance of being HOFers they showed it early too. Eli by year 2 (first year full time starting), Johnson by year 3 (first year starting), Since the 80s and particular 90s most QBs who were going to be great showed that potential early. The only big outlier being Aikman.

So what is the point of all this? Move on from your QBs in a hurry. I see team year after year holding on till year 4 or even 5 in hopes a guy will turn it around or holding onto a good but not great QB who isn't likely to win anything in his career. QBs who show they don't have by year 2 should be quickly cut or traded for any reprieved value they may have. Ideally early in year 2. As for good QBs, holding on to them is often false hope and overlywhelming likely will keep you from winning for a longer period of time.

This is why I don't like the Patriots signing Newton. Even if he comes back to his prime days and plays that way for 5 he will only make them 'compete' and not win for those 5 years. If NFL teams want to win to maximize their chances they should making decisions quickly and move on after 2 years of starting. They should also trade any QB they aquire who is good but not great for draft picks to try again.

I understand BB not wanting to do this so late in his career, but it maximizes the chances of picking a great QB. You may think picking a great QB is a hopeless proposition that is merely luck based and incredibly difficult. It is difficult but not as hard as you may think. We can break it down math wise too. We will look at from the 80s on.
 
Last edited:

Ring 6

PatsFans.com Wall of Fame Member
What is it you hear everyone say about drafting QBs? Develop them slowly, ease them in, give them a few years so you know for sure what you have. Usually year 3 is the make or break year they say. Well I'm here to say this is utter nonsense! The Patriots will not compete for a championship without a great QB.

Instead of listing all the QBs who are HOFers borderline HOFs let's list the ones who aren't. Jim Pucket 2, Eli 2, Theismann 1, McMahon 1, Simms 1, Williams 1, Myriep 1, Dilfer 1, Johnson 1, Flacco 1, Foles 1

That means of the 54 times a QB won a superbowl 13 have been without a very good QB for the era. The QBs run the gauntlet between respectable to bad QBs who just got hot. Of course a few HOF winning QBs weren't amazing either, but they certainly were very good for stretches of their career.

Now with all that said let's get down to the more important issue. IF the QBs who are HOFers to win, how quickly did they show signs of being that kind of player?

Going in order of when they won. Starr year 2 (mostly sat year 1), Namath year 1, Dawson year 6 (first year starting), Unitas year 1, Staubach year 3 (first yea starting), Bob Griese year 1, Bradshaw year 3, Stabler year 4 (first year starting), Montana year 1, Aikman year 3, Young year 7 (2nd year starting), Farve year 2 (first year starting), Elway year 2, Warner year 2 (first year starting), Brady year 2 (first year starting), Ben year 1, Peyton year 1, Brees year 2 (first year starting), Rodgers year 4 (first year starting), Wilson year 1, Mahomes year 2 (first year starting). Also just to be clear when I say first time starting, I mean for a sustained period of time.

While in the past years were a bit more inconsistent in the more modern game the only QB to truly start slow and then pick it up year 3 was Aikman. As for other QBs who aren't or don't have a good chance of being HOFers they showed it early too. Eli by year 2 (first year full time starting), Johnson by year 3 (first year starting), Since the 80s and particular 90s Most QBs who where going to be great showed that potential early. The only big outlier being Aikman.

So what is the point of all this? Move on from your QBs in a hurry. I see team year after year holding on till year 4 or even 5 in hopes a guy will turn it around or holding onto a good but not great QB who isn't likely to win anything in his career. QBs who show they don't have by year 2 should be quickly cut or traded for any reprieved value they may have. Ideally early in year 2. As for good QBs, holding on to them is often false hope and overlywhelming likely will keep you from winning for a longer period of time.

This is why I don't like the Patriots signing Newton. Even if he comes back to his prime days and plays that way for 5 he will only make them 'compete' and not win for those 5 years. If NFL teams want to win to maximize their chances they should making decisions quickly and move on after 2 years of starting. They should also trade any QB they aquire who is good but not great for draft picks to try again.

I understand BB not wanting to do this so late in his career, but i maximizes the chances of picking a great QB. You may think picking a great QB is a hopeless proposition that is merely luck based and incredibly difficult. It is difficult but not as hard as you may think. We can break it down math wise too. We will look at from the 80s on those with the modern game. We will do that on post 2.
There is a chicken and egg aspect to your argument.

Many of the QBs you name are Hall of Famers BECAUSE they won, and many were not the primary reason their team won, or at least were elevated by a great team around them.
Griese, aikman , Starr, Bradshaw Dawson are all examples of QBs who are only hofers because they won. And Namath too because he isn’t in the hall of fame for being a qb but as a celebrity.
Add those to the 13 and you have 13 more and pretty much a 50/50 proposition.

Additionally hall of fame is a career achievement and heavily weighted for longevity.
So yes a good QB will be on a team for a long time and if he is good they win, and at some point have a shot at a SB.

If you want to build a dynasty, having a generational QB is necessary but to win one SB you just need a QB who plays well that season surrounded by a Sb caliber team.
 
Last edited:

BobDigital

Pro Bowl Player
This post is to talk about how likely it is to pick a great QB and how to maximize your chances. Also I will not be looking past round 6.

1980 rd 1 (2), rd 2 (1), rd 3 (0) rd 4 (4), rd 5 (1), rd 6 (2) total 10, no great QBs
1981 rd 1 (2), rd 2 (1), rd 3 (0) rd 4 (3), rd 5 (0), rd 6 (0) total 6, no great QBs
1982 rd 1 (2), rd 2 (2), rd 3 (0) rd 4 (1), rd 5 (0), rd 6 (2) total 7, no great QBs
1983 rd 1 (6), rd 2 (0), rd 3 (0) rd 4 (0), rd 5 (1), rd 6 (2) total 9, 3 great QBs (rd1 JE, DM, JK)
1984 rd 1 (0), rd 2 (1), rd 3 (3) rd 4 (0), rd 5 (2), rd 6 (4) total 10, 2 great QBs (fa WM, SY)
1985 rd 1 (1), rd 2 (1), rd 3 (1) rd 4 (0), rd 5 (0), rd 6 (3) total 6, no great QBs (rd2 RC?)
1986 rd 1 (2), rd 2 (1), rd 3 (3) rd 4 (1), rd 5 (0), rd 6 (2) total 9, no great QBs
1987 rd 1 (4), rd2 (0), rd 3 (1) rd 4 (3), rd 5 (0), rd 6 (0) total 8, no great QBs
1988 rd 1 (0), rd 2 (0), rd 3 (1) rd 4 (0), rd 5 (0), rd 6 (3) total 4, no great QBs
1989 rd 1 (3), rd 2 (2), rd 3 (2) rd 4 (2), rd 5 (0), rd 6 (2) total 13, 1 great QB (rd1 TA)
1990 rd 1 (2), rd 2 (0), rd 3 (3) rd 4 (3), rd 5 (1), rd 6 (2) total 11, no great QBs
1991 rd 1 (2), rd 2 (2), rd 3 (0) rd 4 (0), rd 5 (1), rd 6 (0) total 5, 1 great QB (rd2 BF)
1992 rd 1 (3), rd 2 (2), rd 3 (0) rd 4 (4), rd 5 (0), rd 6 (1) total 10, no great QBs
1993 rd 1 (2), rd 2 (0), rd 3 (1) rd 4 (0), rd 5 (1), rd 6 (0) total 4, no great QBs
1994 rd 1 (2), rd 2 (0), rd 3 (0) rd 4 (2), rd 5 (0), rd 6 (1) total 5, no great QBs
1995 rd 1 (2), rd 2 (2), rd 3 (2) rd 4 (4), rd 5 (1), rd 6 (2) total 13, no great QBs
1996 rd 1 (0), rd 2 (1), rd 3 (1) rd 4 (2), rd 5 (0), rd 6 (2) total 6, no great QBs
1997 rd 1 (1), rd 2 (1), rd 3 (0) rd 4 (2), rd 5 (0), rd 6 (2) total 6, no great QBs
1998 rd 1 (2), rd 2 (1), rd 3 (3) rd 4 (0), rd 5 (0), rd 6 (2) total 8, 2 great QB (rd1 PM fa KW)
1999 rd 1 (5), rd 2 (1), rd 3 (1) rd 4 (2), rd 5 (1), rd 6 (0) total 10, no great QBs

2000 rd 1 (1), rd 2 (0), rd 3 (2) rd 4 (0), rd 5 (1), rd 6 (5) total 9, 1 great QB (rd6 Brady)
2001 rd 1 (1), rd 2 (3), rd 3 (0) rd 4 (3), rd 5 (2), rd 6 (2) total 11, 1 great QB (rd2 Brees)
2002 rd 1 (3), rd 2 (0), rd 3 (1) rd 4 (2), rd 5 (4), rd 6 (2) total 12, no great QBs
2003 rd 1 (4), rd 2 (0), rd 3 (2) rd 4 (1), rd 5 (1), rd 6 (3) total 11, no great QBs
2004 rd 1 (4), rd 2 (0), rd 3 (1) rd 4 (1), rd 5 (1), rd 6 (4) total 11, 2? great QBs (rd1 BR, EM?)
2005 rd 1 (3), rd 2 (0), rd 3 (3) rd 4 (2), rd 5 (2), rd 6 (1) total 11, 1 great QB (rd1 AR)
2006 rd 1 (3), rd 2 (2), rd 3 (2) rd 4 (1), rd 5 (2), rd 6 (2) total 12, no great QBs
2007 rd 1 (2), rd 2 (3), rd 3 (1) rd 4 (1), rd 5 (2), rd 6 (1) total 10, no great QBs
2008 rd 1 (2), rd 2 (2), rd 3 (1) rd 4 (0), rd 5 (4), rd 6 (2) total 11, no great QBs
2009 rd 1 (3), rd 2 (1), rd 3 (0) rd 4 (1), rd 5 (2), rd 6 (4) total 11, no great QBs
2010 rd 1 (2), rd 2 (1), rd 3 (1) rd 4 (1), rd 5 (2), rd 6 (4) total 11, no great QBs
2011 rd 1 (4), rd 2 (2), rd 3 (1) rd 4 (0), rd 5 (3), rd 6 (1) total 11, no great QBs
2012 rd 1 (4), rd 2 (1), rd 3 (2) rd 4 (1), rd 5 (0), rd 6 (1) total 9, 1 great QB (rd3 RW)
2013 rd 1 (1), rd 2 (1), rd 3 (1) rd 4 (4), rd 5 (0), rd 6 (0) total 7, no great QBs
2014 rd 1 (3), rd 2 (2), rd 3 (0) rd 4 (2), rd 5 (2), rd 6 (5) total 13, ? (rd2 JG tbd?)
2015 rd 1 (2), rd 2 (0), rd 3 (2) rd 4 (1), rd 5 (1), rd 6 (0) total 6, no great QBs
2016 rd 1 (3) rd 2 (1), rd 3 (2) rd 4 (3), rd 5 (1), rd 6 (4) total 14, ? (rd1 CW & rd4 DP tbd)
2017 rd 1 (3), rd 2 (1), rd 3 (2) rd 4 (1), rd 5 (1), rd 6 (1) total 9, ? (rd1 PM yes, DW tbd)
2018 rd 1 (5), rd 2 (0), rd 3 (1) rd 4 (1), rd 5 (1), rd 6 (2) total 10, ? (rd1 LJ tbd)
 
Last edited:

Brewskies

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
WOW, BobDigital, you have put a lot of time and effort into this thread with more to come. I am just wondering why? I must have missed the point of this thread, sorry.

Go Pats
 

Chevrolet

Third String But Playing on Special Teams
QB transitioning into starter approach has dramatically shifted over past 5 years.
Trend now is to start the most talented ones ASAP


Patrick Mahomes- 1 season
Lamar Jackson 0.75 seasons
Allen 0.5 seasons
Goff- 1 season
Wentz- 0.5 seasons

Forget about any years before 2015. That was a completely different approach.
They like Stidham and they will pick another QB next year.
Whoever they think is most talented and best fit will likely start quickly regardless of NFL experience
 

BaconGrundleCandy

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
Yea I'm not sure what we're talking about here but ...
The best, most talented usually always play. It's usually pretty evident if someone can play right away. Even in a statistically bad year you can tell who's going to be there in the future.
Rookie year don't matter. Years 2 & 3 are big jump points. If they don't make it by then more GM's should cut bait.


Again I'm confused.
 

Hyped

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
@BobDigital , if I understand your premise, are you saying that we should throw Stiddy into the fire instead of wasting our time with Newton? And that Newton will not bring us to the promised land?

If so, I disagree....although mad props for that draft/QB/round post above....
 

BobDigital

Pro Bowl Player
WOW, BobDigital, you have put a lot of time and effort into this thread with more to come. I am just wondering why? I must have missed the point of this thread, sorry.

Go Pats

Well we come to the point now. I just had to lay the ground work first to support it. : )

And in summation the thing to note is this. Securing a QB likely to win Super Bowls has some very predicatable variables to it.

#1 In NFL history (the more recent the better) a QB shows in his first 2 years starting if he is likely to be great. If he doesn't show this you should get value and move on. IE trade guys like Romo, Rivers, Newton, ect... IF they don't show truly impressive results early you almost certainly should move on and save yourself time and gain yourself value from teams that over estimate their ability to win a championship with them. Trade guys. Don't wait and hope they improve after 2 years starting like Aikman did. By this I mean Donald, Allen, Mayfield & Rosen should all be traded now. Teams can talk themselves into maybe making them work or seeing good play at times. This is false hope. If It is not obvious early you almost certainly missed and would be better off using your time to try again. If they are good hold on to them and as soon as you discover they are 2nd tier and not 1st tier move on immediately

#2 We know were we draft/find Great QBs. Brady is an aberration and speaks more to the NFL that year than anything. He should have gone in rd 3 at the latest. RW is another late picked up QB. The year Andrew Luck, RG3 and co were draft. He should have gone higher too. Be wary of these situations, but generally accept rd 1 or 2 is where franchise QBs are. If you don't pick one then you shouldn't pick one at all (unless such weird cases pop up again). You have a better chance finding a great QB in another league than in rounds 3-7.

#3 There is 1 great QB every 2.5 years on average give or take. There are 135 first and second round picks used on QBs in the last 39 years. and 15 or so great QBs actually drafted. That is about 3.5 picks used on a QB in the first 2 rounds a year and call it 9 top picks on average to find a great QB likely to win you a/some championship(s)

This is a reason teams often give up and stick with Mr. dependable when they shouldn't. Or build up everywhere else and hope to find a guy who can do just enough while not ruining it. This is also why teams hold on to hope with a young guy longer than they should. They don't want to keep trying and want to hope against hope their guy is that Aikman late bloomer. These are not reasonable strategies or hopes if you want to win the most championships.

So what is left to do? Use a top pick every 2 years? Maybe you'll get lucky but it could take you 20 or 30 years to finally find that guy (IE 15 roles of the dice at 11% odds). But actually this is EXACTLY what you should do and it isn't nearly as bad as you think when maxed out. Here's how!

A) Prioritize round 1. This should be obvious buy rd 1 has higher odds than round 2. Making a few more picks that round as opposed to 2 ups your chances a bit.

B) Cutting bait gains value. Let's say you have Baker Mayfield right now? What could you get for him? He's a promising young QB with a good future ahead of him as of now. That's good. Trade him. You'll get picks back. Probably in the top 2 rounds. Use them to try again.

C) If you hold on to a guy who you think has 'it' but doesn't, that is even better. Held on to a guy you thought was legit like Dak? That's fine, their worth even more. Trade them. Coaches and GMs will over pay to save their job and be middle of the pack or maybe even make a playoff game. These may cost you 4 years but the extra picks you get for an established guy are worth it. If you pick a bunch of QBs you'll find guys like these.

D) Don't be afraid to pick multiple QBs in the same year if it is a 'good QB year'. This is something NO ONE ever does and it is stupid. The idea is you want to give your young QB the job and build up their confidence. Having multiple guys fighting for the job lowers their moral. That is BS. These guys have competed all their life. Pick 2 young guys and have them fight for it. It doubles your chances one may hit. If neither hit people may think you 'ruined' them but that is talking head bull. And let's say they both hit and you trade away a Russell Wilson while you have Patrick Mahomes. That sucks cause you spent a high pick and likely got little back, but on the up side you have Patrick Mahomes. So who cares?

Using these strategies a team can shrink their time between getting a truly great QB considerably. Here let me show you 2 teams.

Team A

missed! 4 years/ missed! 3 years/ semi-miss that showed promise 6 years/ Good QB 14 years/ missed! 4 years/ missed! 3 years/ Good QB 9 years/ GREAT QB!

I will assume team A finally hits big on their 8th try. A bit ahead of schedule. In that time they got 2 good QBs who didn't win anything, one young guy they gave extra time too and 4 misses. The time taken to finally hit an all time QB was 43 years and is typical and lines up with many NFL franchises. In those 43 years they maybe won a single super bowl due to their defense.

Now let's assume 12 tys with a highly accelerated and aggressive approach

Team B

Missed 2 years/ missed 2 years (traded for 4th)/ semi-miss 3 years (traded for 2nd)/ Good QB 5 years (traded for 1st and 3)/ missed 2 years/ missed 2 years/ Good QB 4 years traded for 1st and 3/ missed 2 years (traded for a 6th)/ missed 2 years (traded for a 5th)/ GREAT QB!

In total it looks like 24 years. But that isn't the case. We picked multiple QBs 3 times which eliminated 6 years. We Also acquired a 4th, 2nd, 1st, 3rd, 1st, 3rd, 6th and 5th. We took some of those picks and when we felt early on we may have missed after 1 year or were on the wrong track with a good but not great QB we pick another in the 'in between years'. We did this twice. That saves another 4 years. So in reality this took 14 years in this simulation

Using the accelerated model with less success (8 to 11 tries) you could likely find that guy at least 3 times quicker. Of course I have to use a thought experiment as no one has ever tried this as opposed to an actual example. But this is how I think it could play out and how I think the Patriots should act to find that guy as quickly as possible.
 
Last edited:

BobDigital

Pro Bowl Player
@BobDigital , if I understand your premise, are you saying that we should throw Stiddy into the fire instead of wasting our time with Newton? And that Newton will not bring us to the promised land?

If so, I disagree....although mad props for that draft/QB/round post above....

If Newton was going to be that guy he would have shown it by now. He isn't if he plays well this year we should trade him for value. I don't think Stiddy is the guy either. If he is they wouldn't have got Newton. This is a dead year. Could still be fun to watch at times, but we aren't winning.
 

BobDigital

Pro Bowl Player
Yea I'm not sure what we're talking about here but ...
The best, most talented usually always play. It's usually pretty evident if someone can play right away. Even in a statistically bad year you can tell who's going to be there in the future.
Rookie year don't matter. Years 2 & 3 are big jump points. If they don't make it by then more GM's should cut bait.


Again I'm confused.

My point is year 2 matters and year 3 doesn't. Cut bait before year 3. Holding out hope that year 3 will be different just doesn't pay off in my analysis. GMs are almost certainly wasting that precious year and not trading a guy while they could still get value.

Look at these 2 options and see what I mean

A) Hold on for that 3rd year? 99% failure rate and no value on the prospect. Lose 1 year.

B) Trade before 3rd year. Save 1 year. Get value back. Draft again in an area where a prospect has a 10-11% rate of hitting.

Keep in mind I have no proof that 99% failure rate. It could be a little lower. But certain it isn't as good as drafting again. There is no reason to hold on past year 2 from a value perspective and I think the evidence backs that up.
 
Last edited:

BobDigital

Pro Bowl Player
There is a chicken and egg aspect to your argument.

Many of the QBs you name are Hall of Famers BECAUSE they won, and many were not the primary reason their team won, or at least were elevated by a great team around them.
Griese, aikman , Starr, Bradshaw Dawson are all examples of QBs who are only hofers because they won. And Namath too because he isn’t in the hall of fame for being a qb but as a celebrity.
Add those to the 13 and you have 13 more and pretty much a 50/50 proposition.

Additionally hall of fame is a career achievement and heavily weighted for longevity.
So yes a good QB will be on a team for a long time and if he is good they win, and at some point have a shot at a SB.

If you want to build a dynasty, having a generational QB is necessary but to win one SB you just need a QB who plays well that season surrounded by a Sb caliber team.

True. And you have no idea where that QB will come from. It could be a back up, a scrub, a solid guy like Brad Johnson, Flacco or Eli. There seems to be no real rythem or reason to it. A back up/scrub starter is nearly as likely to win as a very good but not great QB. Not as likely but close. In that case I would argue do not wast resources on holding on to or acquiring good but not great QBs. It takes time and resources away from finding legit great QBs.
 

luuked

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
Using the accelerated model with less success (8 to 11 tries you could likely find that guy in at least 3 times quicker. Of course I have to use a thought experiment as no one has ever tried this as opposed to an actual example. But this is how I think it could play out and how I think the Patriots should act to find that guy as quickly as possible.

Teams get to SBs with QBs like Eli, Flacco or Grossman. Bortles was almost there in 2017. Foles got his team to a title.

A great QB makes things easier but not having one doesn't give a GM the license to torpedo one season after with the flimsy excuse of "we are not going anywhere without a top 5 QB".

Furthermore, there is no throwing games in the NFL because you have 53 players and a bunch of assistant coaches and coordinators who want to show their best every week for future employment. Yeah, a GM might move assets around to put himself into a better position but you can't do that season after season.

A) Prioritize round 1. This should be obvious buy rd 1 has higher odds than round 2. Making a few more picks that round as opposed to 2 ups your chances a bit.

This is totally arbitrary. Why would pick #32 have substantially higher odds than #33 ? We gotta stop using the "round 1" label to imply that someone picked at #12 should have the same expectations as someone at #31.

Once you are past the blue chip players in the ~ top 15 there is nothing special about being a first round player or a second round player. The draft value chart remains a pretty good approximation to see how fast the each draft spot goes down in success historically.

I don't think Stiddy is the guy either. If he is they wouldn't have got Newton

I disagree. When a QB that has been pretty successful and even won a MVP award drops into your lap for what is almost vet minimum you do this deal every time. It has absolutely zero to do with the coaching staff being down on Stidham. It is just absolutely bonkers value. It is essentially for free except opportunity cost but with a player who has shown in the past that he is a winner this is a bargain.

Finally, with QBs especially it can take time to get them to a place where you can properly evaluate them. Fail quick and often doesn't seem like a particularly good idea to me at all.
 

BaconGrundleCandy

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
My point is year 2 matters and year 3 doesn't. Cut bait before year 3. Holding out hope that year 3 will be different just doesn't pay off in my analysis. GMs are almost certainly wasting that precious year and not trading a guy while they could still get value.

Look at these 2 options and see what I mean

A) Hold on for that 3rd year? 99% failure rate and no value on the prospect. Lose 1 year.

B) Trade before 3rd year. Save 1 year. Get value back. Draft again in an area where a prospect has a 10-11% rate of hitting.

Keep in mind I have no proof that 99% failure rate. It could be a little lower. But certain it isn't as good as drafting again. There is no reason to hold on past year 2 from a value perspective and I think the evidence backs that up.
I've read studies going back to 2012 on this I believe. Year 2 is the big year, year 3 matters but a lot less and 4th is basically 0. I've been preaching this forever.

I disagree about trading guys like Rivers & Romo though. Both were "good enough" to win it all. Sure they're not elite, all-time greats. But when you look at closer and see how terrible their defense and ST were during certain stretches you can see why they didn't put it all together in the form of a ring.

I definitely agree about cutting bait earlier than most do but I'm sure if you looked you'll find an obvious answer to why they're not traded. Usually the GM/HC is still there and admitting failure is still taboo in our culture.

Another point regarding younger guys like Darnold. Who exactly would thrive in that spot. This is another point that might deserve an *. Sure the QB hasn't performed well but in this particular case his OL is bottom 5. HC bottom 5. No weapons outside of Bell.

I get that he hasn't been the guy but that team is a disaster. So I'm not sure trading him is the answer if the next guy is going to being fighting for his life as well.


*side note* I was just watching a game a vs Rivers and Bill really messed with him and that whole offensive staff. I posted a few clips of KVN but that whole game is so good. I might make a thread bc we need a big library of sorts.
 

Joker

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
I think a lot of what makes a QB a WINNER is not exactly tied to level of talent....think about Jeff George, Jay Cutler, Culpepper, Ken O'Brien, Tony Eason, Vince Young, David Carr...I mean the list goes on and on. Some QB's just slow the game down when the pressure is on and perform in the moment. It's like this throughout life in all phases of the things we do. The best a coach can do is make sure he puts his QB in a position to succeed and let it play out.Looks like BB is doing just that this year...at least I hope he is. Brady was hamstrung last season by O line injuries and below standard performance from the WR core.

My philosophy is hope for the best, plan for the worst. This season is exactly that IMO
 

gobesmug

On the Game Day Roster
The reason QBs are held onto longer, is normally because the GM is in the hotseat.

If he tells the owner "the guy I drafted with the #1 pick (over another QB who actually is good) is terrible, and that we should draft this other QB with our #3 pick this year", will probably end up without a job.

Instead, it's easier for the GM to blame the HC for failing to develop the QB, and that the offense around him was bad. Which is why HCs with top 3 picked QBs tend to be fired after 2 failing seasons.
 

Ivan

Hall of Fame Poster
Nobody will argue that having a “ Franchise” QB is the optimal position for every franchise, but you still have to deal with the reality of the situation, and find ways to be as competitive as possible given what you have. Ultimately it’s about getting into the tournament and running the table, like their last SB win was. I like the Newton signing because it radically improves their chance to win another Lombardi. Newton’s play, if he’s the starter, gives them a much surfer shot at both winning the division, and winning the tournament. That’s no guarantee, but it definitely improves their odds, which is the best you can hope for in year 1 of the Post Brady era.
 

Ivan

Hall of Fame Poster
Teams get to SBs with QBs like Eli, Flacco or Grossman. Bortles was almost there in 2017. Foles got his team to a title.

A great QB makes things easier but not having one doesn't give a GM the license to torpedo one season after with the flimsy excuse of "we are not going anywhere without a top 5 QB".

Furthermore, there is no throwing games in the NFL because you have 53 players and a bunch of assistant coaches and coordinators who want to show their best every week for future employment. Yeah, a GM might move assets around to put himself into a better position but you can't do that season after season.



This is totally arbitrary. Why would pick #32 have substantially higher odds than #33 ? We gotta stop using the "round 1" label to imply that someone picked at #12 should have the same expectations as someone at #31.

Once you are past the blue chip players in the ~ top 15 there is nothing special about being a first round player or a second round player. The draft value chart remains a pretty good approximation to see how fast the each draft spot goes down in success historically.



I disagree. When a QB that has been pretty successful and even won a MVP award drops into your lap for what is almost vet minimum you do this deal every time. It has absolutely zero to do with the coaching staff being down on Stidham. It is just absolutely bonkers value. It is essentially for free except opportunity cost but with a player who has shown in the past that he is a winner this is a bargain.

Finally, with QBs especially it can take time to get them to a place where you can properly evaluate them. Fail quick and often doesn't seem like a particularly good idea to me at all.


Great post, right on the money.
 

Ring 6

PatsFans.com Wall of Fame Member
True. And you have no idea where that QB will come from. It could be a back up, a scrub, a solid guy like Brad Johnson, Flacco or Eli. There seems to be no real rythem or reason to it. A back up/scrub starter is nearly as likely to win as a very good but not great QB. Not as likely but close. In that case I would argue do not wast resources on holding on to or acquiring good but not great QBs. It takes time and resources away from finding legit great QBs.
Again it’s hard to draw the line. Good not great Qbs are good not great because of winning or not wining SBs.
I’ve just never believed there is any magic formula but I also believe a very talented QB can end up anywhere from bust to goat depending on the coaching and development he gets.
 

Hyped

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
If Newton was going to be that guy he would have shown it by now. He isn't if he plays well this year we should trade him for value. I don't think Stiddy is the guy either. If he is they wouldn't have got Newton. This is a dead year. Could still be fun to watch at times, but we aren't winning.

Damn, that is just..like..your opinion man.

Cam "doesn't" gave it? I think his resume is pretty damn impressive:

- More playoff experience than all rival AFC East QBs.

- Only AFCE QB to even play in a Superbowl/Conference title game..

And I think the staff is high on Stiddy and that Stiddy could be some good. It is just Newton/7.5M = An offer we couldn't refuse.

We could start Cam this year and resurrect his career then go to Stiddy next year. Or sign Cam long term..and be competitive the next 5 years.

Brady was an all time great, but we have a loaded football team in the secondary, a solid OL, and a few playmakers. We are still among the NFL's elite teams.
 

ctpatsfan77

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
If Newton was going to be that guy he would have shown it by now. He isn't if he plays well this year we should trade him for value. I don't think Stiddy is the guy either. If he is they wouldn't have got Newton. This is a dead year. Could still be fun to watch at times, but we aren't winning.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: sometimes opportunities fall into your lap that are too good to pass up, regardless of what you think about your team.

A few examples for the Patriots:
  • Randy Moss for a 4 after they already signed Welker, Stallworth, and Washington.
  • LeGarrette Blount getting cut by Pittsburgh mid-season.
  • Justin Bethel getting cut by Baltimore mid-season.
Same thing with Newton: the risk was low enough to justify making the deal, regardless of what they think of Stidham.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top