Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: There is No QB in this Draft « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3

10lbbass

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2984
Online
: March 01, 2014, 11:28:05 PM

I think the chatter is reaching maddening levels and usually, given that the draft is still more than 2 months out, this means that there is no QB in this crop worth looking at early.  When there is no clear cut #1 it means there is no QB that has stepped up and if you have a QB, particularly if he's only in his second year, you shouldn't waste a pick on some huge question mark. I hope Licht focuses on more pressing needs. This group of QB's has potential to be the worst ever in the history of the draft.

Psych

****
Starter

Posts : 274
Offline
#1 : March 01, 2014, 11:38:39 PM

It's funny. Everyone on here will disagree. I was saying that last years Quarterback class was terrible and people would come out of the wood work to say it's one of the best in recent years.

10lbbass

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2984
Online
#2 : March 01, 2014, 11:46:05 PM

Yeah, I truly believe that 5 years from now that all of these QBs will either be out of the league or Sanchezed to some backup role.  There is no Luck in this draft and for that reason if we want to move forward into the realm of a franchise being taken seriously we need to focus elsewhere.

Psych

****
Starter

Posts : 274
Offline
#3 : March 01, 2014, 11:52:44 PM

Glennon will be better in 2014 then any of the Quarterbacks that will be drafted. He receives too much unwarranted hate. He took over a team with ONE wide receiver and nobody to block for him. Yet, he is to blame for the "boring" ineffective offense. He had an incredible year in terms of a rookie quarterback.

bradentonian

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27661
Online
#4 : March 01, 2014, 11:54:02 PM

Yeah, I truly believe that 5 years from now that all of these QBs will either be out of the league or Sanchezed to some backup role.  There is no Luck in this draft and for that reason if we want to move forward into the realm of a franchise being taken seriously we need to focus elsewhere.

There's only been one Luck in the last zillion years.  And when the next one rolls around, we might not be in any position to draft him.  That doesn't mean we can just give up on trying to find a championship caliber QB


10lbbass

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2984
Online
#5 : March 01, 2014, 11:56:59 PM

Psych is my new favorite poster.  Finally a man of reason.  Whether Glennon is the answer to our prayers ( being a franchise QB for once in 36 years) or not, there is nothing to indicate that as a franchise we would not be better served drafting a stud on D with our 7th overall pick. 

threadkiller

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1918
Offline
#6 : March 02, 2014, 12:38:22 AM

You know that stud on D ends up busting out or becoming a backup type player at pretty much the same rate as the quarterback right?  Go back and look at the last 10 years of the top 10 players selected. 

For example, the 07 draft.  Everyone remembers JaMarcus Russel (only qb taken in top 10 that season).  The defenders taken in the top 10 that year were:  Gaines Adams, LaRon Laundry, Jamaal Anderson, and Amobi Akoye. 

Some seasons the defenders come out a little ahead.  06 draft:  Vince Young and Matt Leinart were taken top 10.  Vince started a few seasons and had a couple decent ones.  The defenders were:  Mario Williams, A.J. Hawk, Mike Huff, Donte Whitner, Ernie Sims. 

Other years like 04 the QBs were clearly the winners.  Eli Manning and Phillip Rivers vs. Sean Taylor, DeAngelo Hall, Dunta Robinson.

The tackles seem to have about the same success rate as QBs and defenders.  Wide receivers seem to have the highest bust rate.  Safety and Tight end do pretty well, but that's to be expected imo.  Those positions don't tend to get drafted top 10 unless a special, head and shoulders above their peers, type athlete/player. 

It's overly simplistic to say "let's just take a stud on D".  I could just as easily see Anthony Barr or even Kalil Mack having moderate to no impact on the NFL as Teddy Bridgewater.  Obviously you'd be best served taking the best player regardless of position (unless the quarterback ends up being anywhere close).  That goes without saying. 

Clearly, hitting on a quarterback in the top 10 has far and away the greatest impact on a franchise.  I don't think that is even up for discussion.  I don't understand how you can say a franchise is not better served taking that gamble (assuming they are not seriously reaching given their evaluation). 

SWAGGARRR

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4947
Offline
#7 : March 02, 2014, 01:11:12 AM

You know that stud on D ends up busting out or becoming a backup type player at pretty much the same rate as the quarterback right?  Go back and look at the last 10 years of the top 10 players selected. 

For example, the 07 draft.  Everyone remembers JaMarcus Russel (only qb taken in top 10 that season).  The defenders taken in the top 10 that year were:  Gaines Adams, LaRon Laundry, Jamaal Anderson, and Amobi Akoye. 

Some seasons the defenders come out a little ahead.  06 draft:  Vince Young and Matt Leinart were taken top 10.  Vince started a few seasons and had a couple decent ones.  The defenders were:  Mario Williams, A.J. Hawk, Mike Huff, Donte Whitner, Ernie Sims. 

Other years like 04 the QBs were clearly the winners.  Eli Manning and Phillip Rivers vs. Sean Taylor, DeAngelo Hall, Dunta Robinson.

The tackles seem to have about the same success rate as QBs and defenders.  Wide receivers seem to have the highest bust rate.  Safety and Tight end do pretty well, but that's to be expected imo.  Those positions don't tend to get drafted top 10 unless a special, head and shoulders above their peers, type athlete/player. 

It's overly simplistic to say "let's just take a stud on D".  I could just as easily see Anthony Barr or even Kalil Mack having moderate to no impact on the NFL as Teddy Bridgewater.  Obviously you'd be best served taking the best player regardless of position (unless the quarterback ends up being anywhere close).  That goes without saying. 

Clearly, hitting on a quarterback in the top 10 has far and away the greatest impact on a franchise.  I don't think that is even up for discussion.  I don't understand how you can say a franchise is not better served taking that gamble (assuming they are not seriously reaching given their evaluation).
+1

And with that being said, this thread has just been killed. Nothing more to see here. Move along would be posters.


sammich

****
Starter

Posts : 799
Offline
#8 : March 02, 2014, 01:24:50 AM

Drafting one of these guys and them busting is only half the discussion.  There are also those that feel that Glennon is just as good as some -or all- of these available QBs.  If you feel that way then even if the drafted QB doesn't bust we are still better off devoting a limited resource (top 10 pick) into another position. 

threadkiller

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1918
Offline
#9 : March 02, 2014, 02:14:42 AM

That is not true either sammich.  It's actually pretty ridiculous when you think about it.  Can you think of an example where a team with a quality young backup quarterback has not been compensated at minimum what they gave up to select the quarterback that franchise decided NOT to keep?  When Schaub went to Houston, Atlanta moved up 2 picks in the first round that season, got a 2nd in that draft and a 2nd in the following draft.  Schaub was a 3rd round pick.  The potential downside of that situation being?  You have 2 good players at the most important position on your team for a couple seasons?  Or Glennon turns out to be better then the QB we pick at 7 and it's the first rounder we end up moving in a couple seasons?  Again, the potential benefits greatly outweigh the potential negatives.  Unless you pass on an player you evaluate as elite to take a flier on the QB at 7.  We've already established that is stupid regardless of a team's QB situation going into a particular draft. 

As has been pointed out many times, there are no Andrew Luck type quarterback prospects.  I thought Peyton was a pretty sure bet, I'd have to go back to him for the last QB I personally felt close to as good about coming out of college.  I didn't even like Peyton as much as Andrew though tbh.  I was too young to remember Elway in college, but from what I gather he might have been the closest thing to Luck coming into a particular draft.  It kind of sucks that Andrew has come into the league as recently, because he's become an unfair measuring stick in a lot of people's eyes.  There have been a lot of quarterbacks come into the league and become very good quarterbacks that looked a lot like Teddy Bridgewater coming out of college imo.  A couple very good ones that looked similar to Manziel as well.  Tell me which of the current top 10 quarterbacks came into the league looking like significantly better prospects then the guys in this class? 

What is also pretty well documented, is that while taking a qb in the top 10 doesn't ensure a good quarterback, the best qb in most drafts is among the first few selected.  So you either take one when you have a higher pick, or hope that you can grab a good one in a draft where everyone else picks other positions.  Like Brees.  He was the 1st pick in the 2nd round, but the 2nd quarterback taken that year behind Mike Vick.  Or Rogers, 1st quarterback selected, but taken toward the end of the 1st.  Hell, even Mike was the 3rd quarterback taken last year (not saying he is good, just for those who believe he is).  The changes in the way rookies are compensated makes that scenario less likely now and going forward.  Since you are no longer financially handcuffed to a quarterback if you draft him high, my bet is you'll see most quarterback that are generally evaluated as franchise potential taken in the top 10 (or damn close) most years. 

People who say that this quarterback class is similar to last seasons lose all credibility in my eyes.  Do you all think everyone who evaluates these players for a living is completely incompetent? 

Benchwarmer#1

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 13141
Online
#10 : March 02, 2014, 02:21:10 AM

Yup. This is a pretty good class for qb's.

A lot of variation as well.

Naismith was right about Revis. Everyone else is a dummy.

NotDeadYet

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 6796
Offline
#11 : March 02, 2014, 09:32:09 AM

     Most every player taken early has superior PHYSICAL skills, but still too often 'bust' in the NFL.  Many teams go ga-ga at their physical skills and take a guy early despite non-physical red flags. More and more are wising up and raising the level of importance they put on the Interview & Psychological review results... For a team that's basically still building, making a mistake in round 1 is a major setback!

Nicodemus

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1148
Offline
#12 : March 02, 2014, 10:16:03 AM

     Most every player taken early has superior PHYSICAL skills, but still too often 'bust' in the NFL.  Many teams go ga-ga at their physical skills and take a guy early despite non-physical red flags. More and more are wising up and raising the level of importance they put on the Interview & Psychological review results... For a team that's basically still building, making a mistake in round 1 is a major setback!

And making a mistake at QB in Round 1 is a Franchise killer, go ask the Browns and Raiders how they feel after spending all those first round picks on QBs with great physical skills. Freeman had the physical tools but lacked the psychological ability to harness them in the NFL.

10lbbass

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2984
Online
#13 : March 02, 2014, 10:27:16 AM

Drafting one of these guys and them busting is only half the discussion.  There are also those that feel that Glennon is just as good as some -or all- of these available QBs.  If you feel that way then even if the drafted QB doesn't bust we are still better off devoting a limited resource (top 10 pick) into another position.

Another solid post.  We have a QB that has shown an upside.  If Glennon truly has been at One Buc Place everyday and has shown that he wants to learn and become a more heady prepared QB for his second season, how can you just cast him aside.  If you draft a QB with the #7 pick that is exactly what you are doing. If you look at SB winners one could make the argument that the D line is the most important position on the field.  We have a defensive minded coach so it's important that we draft to suit his style of coaching and improve our D.  Even if we can find  a QB in this draft the level of Tony Romo (3500 + yards every year 30+ TDs) we need to ensure that our D is the nastiest it can be or like Romo we will never win a playoff game.  We accomplish that by drafting Defense with the 7th overall pick.
: March 02, 2014, 10:37:30 AM 10lbbass

CyberDilemma

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 8224
Offline
#14 : March 02, 2014, 10:31:20 AM

Or Rogers, 1st quarterback selected, but taken toward the end of the 1st. 

Rogers wasn't the first QB selected that year. Alex Smith was taken with the 1st pick that year.
Page: 1 2 3
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: There is No QB in this Draft « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools