When The Time Comes, A Mid Round QB Will Probably Not Cut It.

[manxman2601]

I want McCarron but I think he'll be gone by our #2. I think Mettenberger will drop like Mallett did due to his past. Right now I would :

- Keep Mallett next year. Would love to get something for him but we have no backup with system knowledge without him unless Cassell comes back.

- Draft Mettenberger in the 3rd round.

- Let Mallett walk after 2014 when Mettenberger will have a year of experience.

- Revisit when Brady's contract expires or if age catches up with him before that.

REALLY want above scenario with McCarron but I think he'll go no later than early round 2 and we can't afford our #1 on him

Obviously I would look at other QBs from the 3rd round on if Mettenberger is gone. If whoever we draft doesn't look good enough for the long term we can use a #1 on THE guy in the 2015-2016 draft.

Just don't see McCarron as a starter, although our system is as good as any for him. If Barkley doesn't go until the 4th, I can't see McCarron going much earlier than that personally.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

Just don't see McCarron as a starter, although our system is as good as any for him. If Barkley doesn't go until the 4th, I can't see McCarron going much earlier than that personally.

I love McCarron, I guess we'll see, I think there is a lot less depth at QB this year that some like to think and real QB like McCarron will push up. Though, admittedly, non first round QB tend to drop like your Barkley example.

McCarron has more arm than Barkley. What I love about McCarron is he has shown he can take tough coaching, play well in big games and has the Brady fire and competitiveness. I would love to take Amaro in the first round, McCarron in the second then stock up on interior OL and DL after that.

But there's nothing wrong with having lesser backups for the next year or two then spending a #1 when the time is right.

I will add - things change a little now as the rookie contract of a draftee will take that draftee to the end of Brady's contract and Brady to 40 years old. So . . . I could see Bill taking a QB in the first round any year now if he thinks he is the long term answer. Mallett was always going to be a long term backup (barring catastrophic injury to Brady) due to timing. A draftee starting in 2014, that is different.

 

[manxman2601]

I love McCarron, I guess we'll see, I think there is a lot less depth at QB this year that some like to think and real QB like McCarron will push up. Though, admittedly, non first round QB tend to drop like your Barkley example.

McCarron has more arm than Barkley. What I love about McCarron is he has shown he can take tough coaching, play well in big games and has the Brady fire and competitiveness. I would love to take Amaro in the first round, McCarron in the second then stock up on interior OL and DL after that.

But there's nothing wrong with having lesser backups for the next year or two then spending a #1 when the time is right.

I will add - things change a little now as the rookie contract of a draftee will take that draftee to the end of Brady's contract and Brady to 40 years old. So . . . I could see Bill taking a QB in the first round any year now if he thinks he is the long term answer. Mallett was always going to be a long term backup (barring catastrophic injury to Brady) due to timing. A draftee starting in 2014, that is different.

I think one thing that will likely affect the value of these non-obvious first round QBs is the amount of vets that could be floating around: Weeden, Ponder, Schaub, Freeman, Henne, Gabbert are all potential to be moved in one way or another.

 

[patsinthesnow]

I'm still in favor of "reaching" (probably won't be a reach come May) on Garoppolo in round 2. We should draft a high ceiling/high intangible guy that could benefit 2-4 years on the bench behind Brady, and Garoppolo fits the bill.

I'm with Manx on this thread and McCarron. I see three QBs with elite potential in this draft: Bridgewater, Manziel, and Garoppolo. Only one of them will be available at us in round 2. To get a QB with great ability, we'll probably have to draft one high round 2 or round 1 in one of the next 3 drafts.

I don't know much about Carr. Mariota/Hundley/Boyd/Mettenberger/McCarron, not a fan of either them at all or their ceiling.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

I think one thing that will likely affect the value of these non-obvious first round QBs is the amount of vets that could be floating around: Weeden, Ponder, Schaub, Freeman, Henne, Gabbert are all potential to be moved in one way or another.

I think you, or someone else, has said it before but I love Ponder as a 2-3 year backup if we trade Mallett and aren't ready to draft a long term replacement. If we could get a #2 for Mallett, sign Ponder and wait a couple years to take the right guy long term I would like that. The rest of those guys are garbage IMO.

 

[manxman2601]

I'm still in favor of "reaching" (probably won't be a reach come May) on Garoppolo in round 2. We should draft a high ceiling/high intangible guy that could benefit 2-4 years on the bench behind Brady, and Garoppolo fits the bill.

I'm with Manx on this thread and McCarron. I see three QBs with elite potential in this draft: Bridgewater, Manziel, and Garoppolo. Only one of them will be available at us in round 2. To get a QB with great ability, we'll probably have to draft one high round 2 or round 1 in one of the next 3 drafts.

I don't know much about Carr. Mariota/Hundley/Boyd/Mettenberger/McCarron, not a fan of either them at all or their ceiling.

Agree on Garropolo - I do like the upside.

I'm afraid I've changed again on Manziel. I really don't like his arm strength. I'd personally put Carr ahead of him.

 

[manxman2601]

I like the idea of getting some good value upside. Garoppolo is one. Logan Thomas intrigues me because there is so much upside there. And the other one is Ohio State backup Kenny Guiton who is athletic, has a heck of an arm and is supposed to be super smart to the extent that there's talk of him going back to Ohio State to coach.

 

[Luxusdk]

WE all know BB gonna sign Mark Sanchez, when Jets cut him, and own Jets NeXT 10 years !

 

[patchick]

If someone wants to argue that that is just a result of a standard bias of 1st round talent regardless of the position then that's fine. Regardless, 70% of SB appearing QBs were drafted in the first round. Would anyone want to throw their lot in on the 30%?

I just think the stats are really hard to interpret. For instance, you have to factor in that QBs are far more likely than other positions to be drafted in round 1, so that dramatically skews the probability that any team -- winning or losing -- has a first-round QB.

Then consider that the advantages in opportunity granted to all first-round picks are especially powerful for QBs. There's no easing in to the QB position by playing in a platoon and gradually increasing your snaps. Teams generally put their eggs in one basket, and it's very rare for a round 1 QB to NOT be that basket, so to speak.

IOW, "most QBs who end up successful were drafted high" doesn't necessarily mean that the QB talent pool is actually more top-heavy than other positions.

And yet one more item to ponder. Right now, 5 teams in the NFL have 2 or fewer losses. Of these 5 elite teams, ZERO drafted their QB in the first round. The key: 3 of them (Denver, KC and New Orleans) picked up their franchise QB via trade or free agency. It's always possible that Brady's eventual replacement won't be drafted at all.

 

[manxman2601]

I just think the stats are really hard to interpret. For instance, you have to factor in that QBs are far more likely than other positions to be drafted in round 1, so that dramatically skews the probability that any team -- winning or losing -- has a first-round QB.

Then consider that the advantages in opportunity granted to all first-round picks are especially powerful for QBs. There's no easing in to the QB position by playing in a platoon and gradually increasing your snaps. Teams generally put their eggs in one basket, and it's very rare for a round 1 QB to NOT be that basket, so to speak.

IOW, "most QBs who end up successful were drafted high" doesn't necessarily mean that the QB talent pool is actually more top-heavy than other positions.

And yet one more item to ponder. Right now, 5 teams in the NFL have 2 or fewer losses. Of these 5 elite teams, ZERO drafted their QB in the first round. The key: 3 of them (Denver, KC and New Orleans) picked up their franchise QB via trade or free agency. It's always possible that Brady's eventual replacement won't be drafted at all.

Those are two first overall pick you're discounting there. Just so we're clear. I don't dispute that we could go the FA route. but then if I'd wanted to discuss that, I'd have probably gone to the main forum. but this being the DRAFT forum and all.

And to be frank, this is about replacing Tom Brady when the time comes. The stats may be skewed by QB that are drafted high getting more opportunity to succeed. It might be that.this isn't a reflection of the special nature of QB. It is an observation that one greatly enhances the potential for success by drafting a QB with a first round skill set and that finding a later round guy to develop is a MUCH less likely route to success.

 

[patchick]

Those are two first overall pick you're discounting there. Just so we're clear. I don't dispute that we could go the FA route. but then if I'd wanted to discuss that, I'd have probably gone to the main forum. but this being the DRAFT forum and all.

And to be frank, this is about replacing Tom Brady when the time comes. The stats may be skewed by QB that are drafted high getting more opportunity to succeed. It might be that.this isn't a reflection of the special nature of QB. It is an observation that one greatly enhances the potential for success by drafting a QB with a first round skill set and that finding a later round guy to develop is a MUCH less likely route to success.

Just to be clear, I'm totally on board with the core idea that franchise QBs are scarce on the ground, that the rare handful of "sure things" are drafted #1 overall or close to it, and that if you think you have a chance at one you do whatever it takes.

But I think that the recent success of teams that acquired former high draft picks via trade and FA is highly relevant. Looking at both overall success rate and cost/benefit analysis, signing a big-name vet has been the best bet. EDIT: Look back even to the Drew Bledsoe trade, which was one of the most costly of all vet QB acquisitions. If the Bills had kept their #14 overall pick, they would have had their choice of Kyle Boller and Rex Grossman. Whee.

 

[manxman2601]

Just to be clear, I'm totally on board with the core idea that franchise QBs are scarce on the ground, that the rare handful of "sure things" are drafted #1 overall or close to it, and that if you think you have a chance at one you do whatever it takes.

But I think that the recent success of teams that acquired former high draft picks via trade and FA is highly relevant. Looking at both overall success rate and cost/benefit analysis, signing a big-name vet has been the best bet.

I certainly don't disagree with that save for two things. Firstly it's highly risky from a cost perspective. Franchise QBs cost 20m per nowadays and Drew Brees' are very rare. Secondly, just how common are franchise QB vets on the market?

What really drove my original comment was visiting other team boards researching the draft and seeing fans of teams of QB needy teams saying in effect: "we can draft Clowney in the first and get a QB in the second". I believe that's a recipe for disaster (not that on rare occasions you can't find Russell Wilson type value).

I'm really just saying that in the next three years or so that we need to be prepared to bite the bullet.

 

[patchick]

I certainly don't disagree with that save for two things. Firstly it's highly risky from a cost perspective. Franchise QBs cost 20m per nowadays and Drew Brees' are very rare. Secondly, just how common are franchise QB vets on the market?

What really drove my original comment was visiting other team boards researching the draft and seeing fans of teams of QB needy teams saying in effect: "we can draft Clowney in the first and get a QB in the second". I believe that's a recipe for disaster (not that on rare occasions you can't find Russell Wilson type value).

I'm really just saying that in the next three years or so that we need to be prepared to bite the bullet.

That makes sense to me -- though in the Clowney case, I can at least sympathize with a fan who says "I'd rather have a sure-thing STUD defender than waste a super-high draft pick on a player I don't believe in just because he's a QB." The 2010 draft where the top 2 prospects were Bradford and Suh is an interesting comparison. Bradford has, indeed, turned out to be the best QB in that class...but that isn't saying much.

In terms of veterans, it does take a rare and freaky situation to make a Bledsoe or Brees or Manning or even Alex Smith available on the free market. But add those freak occurrences up and compare them to the number of legit franchise QBs drafted during the same time period. Then consider that 31 1st-round picks have been spent on QBs in that time, including 10 picks that were #1 or #2 overall.

 

[Luxusdk]

Question for me is: 1) Do we really wanna sell the house for a "this might be the NeXT thing" OR 2) Do we rebuild a strong defense with a beastly OL?

Basicly Redskins vs Browns...
I beleave that you mayby win fast with option 1, but you build a "dynasty" with option 2)
Qbs cost 20m~ a year, thats a hell lot of Money you could use on CB, DE, DT etc.

Reminding even Mark Sanchez have been in 2x AFC champ games, is he a franchies qb?

 

[manxman2601]

Question for me is: 1) Do we really wanna sell the house for a "this might be the NeXT thing" OR 2) Do we rebuild a strong defense with a beastly OL?

Basicly Redskins vs Browns...
I beleave that you mayby win fast with option 1, but you build a "dynasty" with option 2)
Qbs cost 20m~ a year, thats a hell lot of Money you could use on CB, DE, DT etc.

Reminding even Mark Sanchez have been in 2x AFC champ games, is he a franchies qb?

You never build a dynasty without a franchise QB.

Qbs cost 20m~ a year, thats a hell lot of Money you could use on CB, DE, DT etc.

This is why you draft them. You get five years with a cheap QB and plenty of money to splash on all the other positions. Just look at the spending sprees Seattle, Miami, Cleveland, Cincinnati have all been on.

 

[manxman2601]

That makes sense to me -- though in the Clowney case, I can at least sympathize with a fan who says "I'd rather have a sure-thing STUD defender than waste a super-high draft pick on a player I don't believe in just because he's a QB." The 2010 draft where the top 2 prospects were Bradford and Suh is an interesting comparison. Bradford has, indeed, turned out to be the best QB in that class...but that isn't saying much.

In terms of veterans, it does take a rare and freaky situation to make a Bledsoe or Brees or Manning or even Alex Smith available on the free market. But add those freak occurrences up and compare them to the number of legit franchise QBs drafted during the same time period. Then consider that 31 1st-round picks have been spent on QBs in that time, including 10 picks that were #1 or #2 overall.

I'm certainly not underestimating the importance of correctly evaluating a QB in the draft and I don't think that a first round QB is necessarily the golden fleece.

All I'm arguing is that the right template for finding the next starting QB should be more Green Bay and less Miami.

One more thought is about scheme. Just saw a statistic that has Nick Foles as having the best QB rating of all time. No doubt that will come down but Chip Kelly's scheme will b=probably help Foles and the Eagles to the extent that they could get by without necessarily investing in a franchise guy. Now I'm wary of schemes because they tend to be temporary but if the could find an offensive scheme that exaggerates the skills of a non-first round QB, then that potentially alters things.

 

[patchick]

You never build a dynasty without a franchise QB.

...

This is why you draft them. You get five years with a cheap QB and plenty of money to splash on all the other positions. Just look at the spending sprees Seattle, Miami, Cleveland, Cincinnati have all been on.

Interesting to ponder the two halves of this post...

1. How many of the teams you listed would you say have a franchise QB?

2. Seattle and Cinci, the only 2 winning teams on your list, waited until after round 1 to draft their QBs. So I think you're actually arguing against yourself here.

 

[Luxusdk]

You never build a dynasty without a franchise QB.


This is why you draft them. You get five years with a cheap QB and plenty of money to splash on all the other positions. Just look at the spending sprees Seattle, Miami, Cleveland, Cincinnati have all been on.

I would start with Building anything else then QB and get it later when rest are in place. 20m for a QB aint worth it unless you have the rest.

Of those teams here: Miami is in Deep Chaos and have to clean the house and restart. Browns and Bengals have the pieces but missing a QB ( No Dalton is not the answer ). Seattle seems like they have it all, but.. lets wait a year or 2 with jugdement on Wilson.

 

[everlong]

Logan Thomas intrigues me because there is so much upside there.

I like Thomas but not to be drafted as a QB but rather a TE. At 6'6" 265 he can run in the 4.65 range and was actually recruited as a TE\WR and has played as a receiver in previous seasons. I think with his QB experience he should be able to get on the page with Brady quickly and although not as flexible as AH he'll bring back the two TE look for the Pats. I still think he survives into the 5th or later so I'd roll the dice on a conversion.

 

[manxman2601]

Interesting to ponder the two halves of this post...

1. How many of the teams you listed would you say have a franchise QB?

2. Seattle and Cinci, the only 2 winning teams on your list, waited until after round 1 to draft their QBs. So I think you're actually arguing against yourself here.

There is a difference between "dynasty" and "winning team".

I'll give you Russell Wilson as someone who could lead the Seahawks to a dynasty and if you can guarantee that we can find someone as good as him in the third round then I'll happily admit my error. I suspect I'll be waiting a good while.