Viewing 78 reply threads

  • Author

    Posts

    • Feel Real Good

      Participant
      Post count: 59

      Phil Emery: Developing late-round quarterbacks doesn’t workBears General Manager Phil Emery is not a believer in taking a quarterback late in the draft.Emery says he has studied the development of quarterbacks in the NFL and found that teams that draft quarterbacks in the late round rarely turn those players into franchise starters.“I just did a little study. It’s very interesting,” Emery said. “That developmental theory doesn’t hold a whole lot of water. There’s entire classes of quarterbacks, since ’06, I went back and looked at from [Jay Cutler's draft class] on — when people say developmental quarterbacks, OK, so who has gotten developed? There isn’t a single quarterback after the third round since 2006 that has been a long-term starter. So you’re either developing thirds, and most of them have been wiped out of the league. So to get a quality quarterback, you’ve got to draft them high. That 2012 class is a blip on the radar that’s unusual, highly unusual.In 2012, the Seahawks got Russell Wilson in the third round and the Eagles got Nick Foles in the third round. But Emery says the good quarterbacks are usually snapped up in the first and second rounds.“That 2012 class is a blip on the radar that’s unusual, highly unusual,” Emery said. “Most of the starters in this league come from the first and second round. So that’s where you need to take a quarterback. So when you talk about quarterback every year, they have to be somebody that you truly believe will beat out the second and third quarterback that you perceive on your roster. And if not, history shows that you shouldn’t make that pick.”There is, of course, a glaring exception in Tom Brady, a sixth-round pick of the Patriots in 1999. But according to Emery, the odds of finding a quarterback late in the draft are so long that you’re better off not trying.

      http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/05/04/phil-emery-developing-late-round-quarterbacks-doesnt-work/

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 4057

      Here are you good QBs taken after R3 in the last 20 years:BradyRomoBulgerHasselbeckWarnerGarciaDelhommeYou might quibble with some of those cats being good depending on how you feel about Delhomme, Hasselbeck and Bulger.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 4623

      Here are you good QBs taken after R3 in the last 20 years:BradyRomoBulgerHasselbeckWarnerGarciaDelhommeYou might quibble with some of those cats being good depending on how you feel about Delhomme, Hasselbeck and Bulger.

      His data set was from 2006 to now.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 4057

      Yeah I know he was looking shorter terms, I think expanding the data only makes his point even more dramatically. That is 7 “developmental” QBs in 20 years across 32 teams. That’s a sad rate and it is even worse when you look at the swarms of later round QBs the hit rate is pathetic.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9276

      ok….so take Murray in the 2nd

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 8096

      …and there are only a few “elite” QBs in the league…The developmental QBs are being taken in every round.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 4623

      Here are all the QBs selected in the 3rd round or later since 2006: 2006Charlie Whitehurst Brodie Croyle Ingle Martin Omar Jacobs Bruce Gradkowski D.J. Shockley2007Trent Edwards Jeff Rowe QB Troy Smith QB Jordan Palmer Tyler Thigpen2008Kevin O'Connell John David Booty Dennis Dixon Josh Johnson Erik Ainge Colt Brennan Andre Woodson Matt Flynn QB Alex Brink2009Stephen McGee Rhett Bomar Nate Davis Tom Brandstater Mike Teel Keith Null Curtis Painter2010Colt McCoy Mike Kafka John Skelton Jonathan Crompton Rusty Smith Dan LeFevour Joe Webb Tony Pike Levi Brown Sean Canfield Zac Robinson2011Ryan Mallett Ricky Stanzi T.J Yates Nathan Enderle Tyrod Taylor Greg McElroy2012Russell Wilson Nick Foles Kirk Cousins Ryan Lindley B.J. Coleman Chandler Harnish2013Mike Glennon Matt Barkley Ryan Nassib Tyler Wilson Landry Jones Brad Sorensen Zac Dysert B.J. Daniels Sean Renfree

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 795

      ok....so take Murray in the 2nd

      Agree….or if not him, Garropolo

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 4057

      Sad thing about that since 2006 list is how few of those later round guys even became the “solid” backup types. Most of those guys are just gone.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 4623

      Sad thing about that since 2006 list is how few of those later round guys even became the "solid" backup types. Most of those guys are just gone.

      I think you can definitely argue in the "modern" era of scouting, which probably coincides with 2006 or so, with every mid major game being on cable TV and a cottage draft industry with YouTube videos for every marginal prospect, you're increasingly less likely to have legit QBs slip through the cracks.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9276

      ok....so take Murray in the 2nd

      Agree....or if not him, Garropolo

      Yessir!!

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 8096

      The attrition of QBs and RBs… similar.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 293

      I have been saying that on these boards for the past few weeks now… Every time someone says waste a 3rd or later on one of these second or third tier QB’s. Waste. Of. A. Pick.Get someone that can actually help the team instead of hoping you were right about your genius "sleeper QB" in the 6th round.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6506

      Two things.Emery might be right, but making that assumption by looking at just the 7 years between 2006 and 2013 is very short sighted and pretty stupid. To me, if you are gonna go out in public as a GM and say you did a study and make a bold statement.....then do your homework and look at the last 20 years. Not just 7.Secondly, I don't think many teams take a QB in the late rounds with the expectations of him being a great starter. The expectations at that point are good back up with the potential to be a 1 in 100 surprise guy that ends up being a starter. So the statement isn't exactly ground breaking. I think most GMs, HCs, and fans realize your odds of getting a starting QB in the later rounds is slim and none. For the Bucs specifically, it sounds like we have decided that Glennon is not the athlete we want under center and can't do the things we want him to....so it makes sense to trade him and take a QB in the 3rd to 5th round range to replace him.....but it is still just drafting a back up QB that better fits what we want to do. If we get a starter at that point in the draft we are incredibly fortunate.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6506

      Also, the truth is later round guys don’t often get the same opportunities as the guys taken early. Look at Russell Wilson for an example. What if he had gone to a team with a franchise QB already instead of the Seahawks. He would have never really had the opportunity to do what he has done. he probably sits on the bench as a backup for 4 years and then becomes a free agent and nobody even gives him a second shot because at that point he is just a 5’11” QB who is 28 and never done anything. He probably goes off to play baseball and is considered a waste of a 3rd round pick. Nobody ever knows what he was capable of.How close was Foles to being a career backup? Could Cousins be a starter? Mallett? Tyrod Taylor?  Brock Osweiler? Tyler WIlson? Ryan Nassib? There are probably 10 other guys lost in depth charts around the league that you could ask the same thing. So how many guys are there like that, that could actually be a good starter if given the chance? Nobody really knows. So it is really just an opinion based decision. You can think there are no QBs sitting out there on the bench or even on practice squads, that could rise up to the occasion and start if put in the right situation. Or you can believe there are gems out there that just haven't been discovered. Either way it is still a personal strategy based on philosophy and opinion. No list of names is going to provide a definitive answer.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 4057

      Well you  can look at that list and see a bunch of not starting, not even on rosters. It is one thing to think player X might be a hidden gem another to think that when he isn’t even on a roster anywhere.  The simple fact is Wilson, Schaub and their ilk show that if you have talent the NFL will sniff it out and promote it.  Clearly you can find guys later who can play, there have been some. The question is do you want to build a draft strategy and franchise development around that sort of out of the blue sky sort of event. This is where you start looking at playing the percentages.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 8096

      I think they want Connor Shaw.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 4057

      I think they want Connor Shaw.

      Yeah, there is a guy who will be unemployed in 2 years.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 8096

      I think they want Connor Shaw.

      Yeah, there is a guy who will be unemployed in 2 years.

      Have you looked at the depth charts in this league?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 4623

      I think they want Connor Shaw.

      Yeah, there is a guy who will be unemployed in 2 years.

      I'm sure he'll have a very productive insurance office in Columbia.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 8983

      We’re the buccaneers. We don’t need a top tier qb! Never had, never will!At least, not with all these wimpy "what's a qb?" fans around.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6506

      I think they want Connor Shaw.

      Yeah, there is a guy who will be unemployed in 2 years.

      I've said that if we end up drafting Carr I will suck it up and support him...or at least shut up if I have nothing nice to say. BUT if we use a draft pick on Connor Shaw or Garrett Gilbert I will probably freak the fug out.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 8096

      I think they want Connor Shaw.

      Yeah, there is a guy who will be unemployed in 2 years.

      I've said that if we end up drafting Carr I will suck it up and support him...or at least shut up if I have nothing nice to say. BUT if we use a draft pick on Connor Shaw or Garrett Gilbert I will probably freak the fug out.

      "They" was the Bears... just to be clear.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 8983

      I think they want Connor Shaw.

      Yeah, there is a guy who will be unemployed in 2 years.

      I've said that if we end up drafting Carr I will suck it up and support him...or at least shut up if I have nothing nice to say. BUT if we use a draft pick on Connor Shaw or Garrett Gilbert I will probably freak the fug out.

      Me too jd.But we already have one of those guys. His name is glennon. Plus, you don't "smokescreen" for low round qbs. Why have all the top qb's in for a look and follow them around, just to pick the ginger stepchild of the bunch?I'm pretty damn sure were not drafting a low round qb at this point.If they don't draft a qb with their first pick, we aren't getting one.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 4057

      I think they want Connor Shaw.

      Yeah, there is a guy who will be unemployed in 2 years.

      Have you looked at the depth charts in this league?

      Go back and look at all the other late round guys that were posted and realize that they're mostly out of the league or soon will be. Shaw doesn't have anything special about him. Particularly I don't think he's the sort of student of the game that might have been overlooked.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3392

      Hmmm. I don’t think you should ever count on a franchise guy coming from the later rounds, but I don’t have any problem with the Bucs taking a guy late and seeing if they can develop them, as cheap backups have value. If I’m drafting a QB in general, I’m thinking rounds 1 OR round 6/7. I don’t particularly care for the middle round guys in general, though obviously we’ve just seen 2 big exceptions.  I think that’s where the risk/reward doesn’t really work. The counter argument to this is Ron Wolf at Green Bay - regularly took QBs in the later rounds and used them as currency. Not that the specific years make so much of a difference, but Emery's choice of years is sort of odd. If you start in 2006, that means your sample includes a large share of years where we just don't know the results. If the point is "developmental" how can you evaluate the late round guys from 2011 - 2013?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 4140

      Here are you good QBs taken after R3 in the last 20 years:BradyRomoBulgerHasselbeckWarnerGarciaDelhommeYou might quibble with some of those cats being good depending on how you feel about Delhomme, Hasselbeck and Bulger.

      248 QB's drafted since 1993 total.150 QBs drafted 4th or later  http://pfref.com/tiny/hAfrLTake those numbers and it works out to be exactly 4.666666666%.98 QBs drafted 3rd or earlier. http://pfref.com/tiny/2qwqj(exempting the 2011/12 classes - too soon)"successful QBs"  (starter, winning games, playoff appearances) (16)? is negotiable..NewtonDaltonStafford?RyanFlaccoCutler ?A. SmithRodgersE. ManningRiversRothlisbergerSchaub?Vick?BreesMcNabbCulpepperP. ManningMcNairDilfer19.3877%  (almost 1 in 5 have 'success')Just some numbers to roll around.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3316

      Yeah I know he was looking shorter terms, I think expanding the data only makes his point even more dramatically. That is 7 "developmental" QBs in 20 years across 32 teams. That's a sad rate and it is even worse when you look at the swarms of later round QBs the hit rate is pathetic.

      This...teams have less time to develop a QB as well.  The clock is ticking from day one.  It is win soon or you are fired.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 4140

      I’d actually argue that they have more time to develop one given the less money being put up out front.  That is, of course, given that any fan base could be that patient (in the history of the World)… Said no Buc fan ever.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1125

      Here are you good QBs taken after R3 in the last 20 years:BradyRomoBulgerHasselbeckWarnerGarciaDelhommeYou might quibble with some of those cats being good depending on how you feel about Delhomme, Hasselbeck and Bulger.

      Over TWENTY years?    That's a sad list.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2967

      Also, the truth is later round guys don't often get the same opportunities as the guys taken early. Look at Russell Wilson for an example. What if he had gone to a team with a franchise QB already instead of the Seahawks. He would have never really had the opportunity to do what he has done. he probably sits on the bench as a backup for 4 years and then becomes a free agent and nobody even gives him a second shot because at that point he is just a 5'11" QB who is 28 and never done anything. He probably goes off to play baseball and is considered a waste of a 3rd round pick. Nobody ever knows what he was capable of.How close was Foles to being a career backup? Could Cousins be a starter? Mallett? Tyrod Taylor?  Brock Osweiler? Tyler WIlson? Ryan Nassib? There are probably 10 other guys lost in depth charts around the league that you could ask the same thing. So how many guys are there like that, that could actually be a good starter if given the chance? Nobody really knows. So it is really just an opinion based decision. You can think there are no QBs sitting out there on the bench or even on practice squads, that could rise up to the occasion and start if put in the right situation. Or you can believe there are gems out there that just haven't been discovered. Either way it is still a personal strategy based on philosophy and opinion. No list of names is going to provide a definitive answer.

      Absolutely agree. How many of these guys taken late have had a real opportunity to start....and just as importantly, have meaningful reps with the first team, week in and week out. Emery's "little study" hasn't determined squat.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2775

      Here are you good QBs taken after R3 in the last 20 years:BradyRomoBulgerHasselbeckWarnerGarciaDelhommeYou might quibble with some of those cats being good depending on how you feel about Delhomme, Hasselbeck and Bulger.

      Over TWENTY years?    That's a sad list.

      Pathetic.  Produced a grand total of 2 rings.  College has evolved enough where you can tell whether or not someone has a chance in this league.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1125

      I guess that explains why Glennon was a failure.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2775

      I guess that explains why Glennon was a failure.

      Yeah, his career had it's ups and downs but looking back at it, in it's entirety, he just plain sucked.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 4057

      Also, the truth is later round guys don't often get the same opportunities as the guys taken early. Look at Russell Wilson for an example. What if he had gone to a team with a franchise QB already instead of the Seahawks. He would have never really had the opportunity to do what he has done. he probably sits on the bench as a backup for 4 years and then becomes a free agent and nobody even gives him a second shot because at that point he is just a 5'11" QB who is 28 and never done anything. He probably goes off to play baseball and is considered a waste of a 3rd round pick. Nobody ever knows what he was capable of.How close was Foles to being a career backup? Could Cousins be a starter? Mallett? Tyrod Taylor?  Brock Osweiler? Tyler WIlson? Ryan Nassib? There are probably 10 other guys lost in depth charts around the league that you could ask the same thing. So how many guys are there like that, that could actually be a good starter if given the chance? Nobody really knows. So it is really just an opinion based decision. You can think there are no QBs sitting out there on the bench or even on practice squads, that could rise up to the occasion and start if put in the right situation. Or you can believe there are gems out there that just haven't been discovered. Either way it is still a personal strategy based on philosophy and opinion. No list of names is going to provide a definitive answer.

      Absolutely agree. How many of these guys taken late have had a real opportunity to start....and just as importantly, have meaningful reps with the first team, week in and week out. Emery's "little study" hasn't determined squat.

      Right, again, go look at the list and spot all the hidden gems.You act like teams have no visibility into players. Starters don't get hurt, dudes don't light it up in pre-season, no one sees guys practicing and thinks "hey that cat can play".  The vast majority of those names aren't even in the league anymore so it isn't like they are stars waiting to shine.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6506

      I guess that explains why Glennon was a failure.

      Yeah, his career had it's ups and downs but looking back at it, in it's entirety, he just plain sucked.

      Well at least you finally admitted it.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1455

      Here are you good QBs taken after R3 in the last 20 years:BradyRomoBulgerHasselbeckWarnerGarciaDelhommeYou might quibble with some of those cats being good depending on how you feel about Delhomme, Hasselbeck and Bulger.

      Over TWENTY years?    That's a sad list.

      Pathetic.  Produced a grand total of 2 rings.  College has evolved enough where you can tell whether or not someone has a chance in this league.

      Did Brady give one of his back?Did the Rams suddenly forfeit their Super Bowl win?And to think you run around telling people they need to learn some football.The fact that Brady seems to play in every 2nd Super Bowl, Warner went to 3 and two others went to 1, I would say what so few late round picks accomplished combined is pretty good.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 8983

      The draft is merely a gage. What your team does and how they react is an entirely different story.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2608

      I guess that explains why Glennon was a failure.

      Yeah, his career had it's ups and downs but looking back at it, in it's entirety, he just plain sucked.

      LOL!

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2188

      Yes, late round picks should be spent on various undersized TEs.  – GruAllen

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      water is wet?If you open up the scope to ANY position, isn't the chance of plucking a starter third round or later only around 30%?  If so, is it surprising the chances are much less for a late-round player playing QB?  Unlike a linebacker or a D-lineman etc., QB is ONE player for ONE position and it is also one player for one position where there is usually no substitution barring injury and where there is typically a heavily entrenched starter.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6506

      Since Emery is starting Clausen over Cutler this week, a complete joke, and will be out of a job in two weeks….can we laugh at his opinions on quarterbacks?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 5188

      Since Emery is starting Clausen over Cutler this week, a complete joke, and will be out of a job in two weeks....can we laugh at his opinions on quarterbacks?

      Sure.I would like your opinion on some LATE round QB prospects.  Stay away from the early round stuff...not good for your systolic/diastolic...and it pisses of guys who are clamoring for Marcus the Duck.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1098

      I mean his evaluation on Cutler and decision to pay him that much money is retarded.But history still shows us that you're more likely to develop a QB taken earlier than not.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6506

      Since Emery is starting Clausen over Cutler this week, a complete joke, and will be out of a job in two weeks....can we laugh at his opinions on quarterbacks?

      Sure.I would like your opinion on some LATE round QB prospects.  Stay away from the early round stuff...not good for your systolic/diastolic...and it pisses of guys who are clamoring for Marcus the Duck.

      Marcus was my #1 quarterback last year and he remains my #1 this year. I really don't care about any other quarterback in this draft. It's the Duck or Bust.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1858

      From 2000 to 2010 the chances of drafting a franchise QB after round 1 are 3.4%.  Explanation here: http://www.morethanhardwork.com/draft-qb-1/Between 2000 and 2010 144 QBs were drafted.  Let THAT sink in.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 11506

      It doesn’t work because teams don’t give it a chance to work . The only way to truly get better is to take a lot of reps , and teams aren’t willing to commit that amount of reps to a raw late rounder.A lot more guys could and would develop , but development is a thing of the past. Teams simply don't have the practice time to do it anymore. You either have it or you don't and if you don't they are moving to the next guy . It's why a separate developmental league is needed.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6506

      From 2000 to 2010 the chances of drafting a franchise QB after round 1 are 3.4%.  Explanation here: http://www.morethanhardwork.com/draft-qb-1/Between 2000 and 2010 144 QBs were drafted.  Let THAT sink in.

      I think those numbers might be a little deceiving. If you posted the same numbers for every other position, my guess is they would be about the same. The fact is that every draft has 1500+ eligible players. About 250 of those players are drafted. About 50 of those drafted players are still in the league 3 years later. So yes, the odds are going to look horrible. Quarterbacks taken outside of the first round get even less opportunities that late round picks at other positions, so their numbers will probably be slightly worse. Also, where did you get your 3.4% for franchise quarterbacks outside of round one? Who decides what a franchise quarterback is? Is Andy Dalton a franchise QB? Perhaps looking at quarterbacks that have started 20+ games would be a better measure than using a loose term like franchise quarterback. That can mean different things to different people. All that said....I am curious to see which, if any, mid/late round quarterbacks from the 2014 draft end up being starters. Carr, Manziel, Bridgewater, Bortles, Savage, and Mettenberger have already got their feet wet to different degrees, but Fales, McCarron, Murray, Thomas, Wenning, Boyd, and Garoppolo have yet to play in the regular season. I think one or two of those guys could end up being starters a few years down the road.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 4057

      Here is the difference, in most spots there are degrees of players. GMC is better than McDonald who is better than Spence. All 3 of those guys are useful. QBs are more binary,either they can get you to the playoffs or they can’t. You can say Dalton isn’t as good as Rodgers and be right but Dalton is clearly a cut above Josh McCown example.  The difference is you can deal with Spence at DT as a weakness, you can’t deal with McCown at QB.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 4623

      It doesn't work because teams don't give it a chance to work . The only way to truly get better is to take a lot of reps , and teams aren't willing to commit that amount of reps to a raw late rounder.A lot more guys could and would develop , but development is a thing of the past. Teams simply don't have the practice time to do it anymore. You either have it or you don't and if you don't they are moving to the next guy . It's why a separate developmental league is needed.

      Which QBs who never turned into anything would have been good if they got more time?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6506

      It doesn't work because teams don't give it a chance to work . The only way to truly get better is to take a lot of reps , and teams aren't willing to commit that amount of reps to a raw late rounder.A lot more guys could and would develop , but development is a thing of the past. Teams simply don't have the practice time to do it anymore. You either have it or you don't and if you don't they are moving to the next guy . It's why a separate developmental league is needed.

      Which QBs who never turned into anything would have been good if they got more time?

      That is a ridiculous question. There is no way to know.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2275

      Neither does paying someone like Cutler  ;)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3027

      Since Emery is starting Clausen over Cutler this week, a complete joke, and will be out of a job in two weeks....can we laugh at his opinions on quarterbacks?

      I think you nailed it in an earlier post. I think a lot of the later round guys not developing has something to do with how much time they get. Just look in Tampa for example. Freeman got 5 years to flame out because he was  first rounder and expectations. Glennon got 18 games.It gets worse because fans and their money are becoming more and more of the decision making process for NFL franchises. Think Belicheck is a genius? or how about Chip Kelly? Nope, they are guys that know football and don't let others who don't know football as well alter their decision making process. Belicheck changes in offensive/defensive scheme every week to take advantage of what the opponent is good or bad at. What do we do? 7 step drops week after week after week with an offensive line that can barely block a 3 step.Then you have guys like Lovie Smith who cut players, not because they were no good, but because they didn't fit his scheme or were Schiano guys or looked at his wife wrong. So Lovie Smith says learn the system or get out, I say Lovie, use the talent you have or get out. Nope, we'll just absolutely explode this team, derail it for another two years, so maybe we can rebuild it in the essence of Lovie Smith and 1995.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6506

      Agreed BucNY. Good coaches are flexible and make their system evolve to fit their roster and their opponent. Archaic coaches like Lovie Smith still think they have the winning formula and it is a rigid mold that every player has to fit into or else! It is why I have lost all faith in Lovie and would love a guy like Bevell.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1658

      I think those numbers might be a little deceiving. If you posted the same numbers for every other position, my guess is they would be about the same.

      I wouldn't expect it to be *every* position (e.g., kickers would be an obvious exception), but I would fully expect it to be true of the most important positions (ie, qb, de, ot, etc.).  But ... that doesn't change anything or detract from the argument in any way.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 4623

      I think you nailed it in an earlier post. I think a lot of the later round guys not developing has something to do with how much time they get. Just look in Tampa for example. Freeman got 5 years to flame out because he was  first rounder and expectations. Glennon got 18 games.

      Freeman wasn't given anything.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6506

      I think those numbers might be a little deceiving. If you posted the same numbers for every other position, my guess is they would be about the same.

      I wouldn't expect it to be *every* position (e.g., kickers would be an obvious exception), but I would fully expect it to be true of the most important positions (ie, qb, de, ot, etc.).  But ... that doesn't change anything or detract from the argument in any way.

      I think you have to look at it in context. Taking a quarterback outside of the 1st round gives you a small percentage of success, but the percentage is very low on ALL players at ALL positions, so you have to realize that. Running back would probably be the highest success rate of any position taken outside of the 1st round (I'm not talking about kickers or punters) and yet the percentage on successful running backs in the mid to late rounds probably isn't much better. If you are just going to look at that small % and say it doesn't work, then there would be no point in drafting anyone outside of the top 50 picks.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1658

      I think those numbers might be a little deceiving. If you posted the same numbers for every other position, my guess is they would be about the same.

      I wouldn't expect it to be *every* position (e.g., kickers would be an obvious exception), but I would fully expect it to be true of the most important positions (ie, qb, de, ot, etc.).  But ... that doesn't change anything or detract from the argument in any way.

      I think you have to look at it in context. Taking a quarterback outside of the 1st round gives you a small percentage of success, but the percentage is very low on ALL players at ALL positions, so you have to realize that. Running back would probably be the highest success rate of any position taken outside of the 1st round (I'm not talking about kickers or punters) and yet the percentage on successful running backs in the mid to late rounds probably isn't much better. If you are just going to look at that small % and say it doesn't work, then there would be no point in drafting anyone outside of the top 50 picks.

      I think the context is that QB is far and away the most important position these days, so if there's one position you want to maximize your chances of having at least a quality player at, that's the one.  Plus, as dalbuc points out, you draft a DE later on and get a rotational player who maybe can contribute on special teams, that's ok.  Teams need those sorts of players too.  You draft a quarterback and they're a similar calibur of player, you desperately hope they never see the football field.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3027

      I think you nailed it in an earlier post. I think a lot of the later round guys not developing has something to do with how much time they get. Just look in Tampa for example. Freeman got 5 years to flame out because he was  first rounder and expectations. Glennon got 18 games.

      Freeman wasn't given anything.

      Freeman was bad every year except his 2nd season. I'd say he was given plenty of time to prove what he was. He also got two coaches fired in the meantime.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 4623

      I think you nailed it in an earlier post. I think a lot of the later round guys not developing has something to do with how much time they get. Just look in Tampa for example. Freeman got 5 years to flame out because he was  first rounder and expectations. Glennon got 18 games.

      Freeman wasn't given anything.

      Freeman was bad every year except his 2nd season. I'd say he was given plenty of time to prove what he was. He also got two coaches fired in the meantime.

      If Glennon had the season Freeman had his second year he'd still be playing. But he didn't and here we are.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1858

      From 2000 to 2010 the chances of drafting a franchise QB after round 1 are 3.4%.  Explanation here: http://www.morethanhardwork.com/draft-qb-1/Between 2000 and 2010 144 QBs were drafted.  Let THAT sink in.

      I think those numbers might be a little deceiving. If you posted the same numbers for every other position, my guess is they would be about the same. The fact is that every draft has 1500+ eligible players. About 250 of those players are drafted. About 50 of those drafted players are still in the league 3 years later. So yes, the odds are going to look horrible. Quarterbacks taken outside of the first round get even less opportunities that late round picks at other positions, so their numbers will probably be slightly worse. Also, where did you get your 3.4% for franchise quarterbacks outside of round one? Who decides what a franchise quarterback is? Is Andy Dalton a franchise QB? Perhaps looking at quarterbacks that have started 20+ games would be a better measure than using a loose term like franchise quarterback. That can mean different things to different people. All that said....I am curious to see which, if any, mid/late round quarterbacks from the 2014 draft end up being starters. Carr, Manziel, Bridgewater, Bortles, Savage, and Mettenberger have already got their feet wet to different degrees, but Fales, McCarron, Murray, Thomas, Wenning, Boyd, and Garoppolo have yet to play in the regular season. I think one or two of those guys could end up being starters a few years down the road.

      Sure, the numbers are low for every position.  Except that the argument isn't "Which positions are the hardest to develop in the late rounds".  We want to understand what are the chances of drafting a QB late and him developing - well if we look at all the draft eligible players from 2000 to 2010 there were 144 QBs picked.  Of that group, those picked after the 1st round had a 3.4% chance of developing into a franchise QB.What is a franchise QB?  Well, I used an arbitrary line and looked at playoff wins over the career.  The real value of a franchise QB is that you are regularly going to the playoffs and have a serious chance at the SB every year with that QB.  So no, Andy Dalton isn't a franchise (and drafted in 2011).  I don't use starts because a player like McCown has X starts but is terrible.  Or take Sanchez.  Or Alex Smith.  But the numbers are large enough that you can include players like that without affecting the numbers much at all.  So it doesn't hinge on what I define as a "franchise QB".This is the exact list (and remember, 2000-2010): Stafford, Ryan, Flacco, Cutler, Rodgers, Manning, Roethlisberger, Rivers, Palmer, Romo, Vick, Brees, Bulger, and Brady.And as for late-round QBs being given less chance to develop (and start). YES! But who CARES!  That's the reality of the NFL.  It isn't going to change.  We could theorize about how a developmental league, changed roster req'ms, etc. etc. etc. would affect the development of late round picks but it's irrelevant to our discussion.  We're talking about the reality now.And every team wants to win the Super Bowl.  So getting starts out of a QB isn't enough.  Freeman fits this mold then.  Lots of bad QBs do.  Finding a Freeman in round 6 is not a win.  If the goal is finding a backup QB?  Sure.  But that's not the question.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1858

      I think you nailed it in an earlier post. I think a lot of the later round guys not developing has something to do with how much time they get. Just look in Tampa for example. Freeman got 5 years to flame out because he was  first rounder and expectations. Glennon got 18 games.

      Freeman wasn't given anything.

      Freeman was bad every year except his 2nd season. I'd say he was given plenty of time to prove what he was. He also got two coaches fired in the meantime.

      If Glennon had the season Freeman had his second year he'd still be playing. But he didn't and here we are.

      And they're not given more time because, bluntly, they're not very good.  No amount of time makes Josh Johnson a better QB.  Alex Taney doesn't just need more repts. Are there exceptions? Sure, give every QB 100 started gamed and a few late round gems would emerge.  But that would be like 2% of cases.  And this idea "they just need more time" ignores that most of the time these guys don't have the physical tools.  They can't read a defence fast enough, don't have the arm strength.  It's not different than saying all the CBs that ran 4.7 in the 40 just need more time.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3027

      I think you nailed it in an earlier post. I think a lot of the later round guys not developing has something to do with how much time they get. Just look in Tampa for example. Freeman got 5 years to flame out because he was  first rounder and expectations. Glennon got 18 games.

      Freeman wasn't given anything.

      Freeman was bad every year except his 2nd season. I'd say he was given plenty of time to prove what he was. He also got two coaches fired in the meantime.

      If Glennon had the season Freeman had his second year he'd still be playing. But he didn't and here we are.

      I knew you were going to make me do this.Freemans 1st 5 starts of his 2nd year....6TDs vs 3 INTs 58% completion208 ypg5.24 y/a76.6 passer rating114 rushing yardsGlennons 1st 5 starts of his 2nd year (only 5)....9TDs vs 6 INTs56% completion259 ypg7.24 y/a81.6 passer rating30 rushing yardsHuh?The biggest difference between the start of Freemans 2nd year and Glennons is the record. Freeman was 3-2 and Glennon was 1-4. That's it. Freeman had a better run game and better defense and as a result won more games with very similar production.Josh Freemans offense put up 16 points a game and Mike Glennons' put up 21 points a game. At this point you can't even argue they had similar level of talent. This 2014 Bucs team is horrible.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3027

      Don’t get me wrong. This is not a post saying Glennon is or should be our guy. I’m saying based on how much time QBs get and how it varies based on what round they are drafted, it’s like guys are sent packing without having a fair shot.No one thinks Jay Cutler needs more time but you have a young QB who has some success, you give him some more time.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 5572

      My favorite quarterback in this year’s draft was Carr and that’s who I wish we would have gotten.However, since we didn't get him, I wish Glennon would have gotten the whole year as a starter. I don't think he would have been anything special, but at least it would have given us the chance to prove it.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3169

      Since Emery is starting Clausen over Cutler this week, a complete joke, and will be out of a job in two weeks....can we laugh at his opinions on quarterbacks?

      No, because his opinion is still valid.  Plus, Emery isn't starting Clausen, Trestman is.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3169

      I would just like to add the following.  Does everyone remember SR’s article about trading the #1 pick to the Eagles?  To those who don’t think that a team would trade up to #1 by giving multiple #1’s (like the Redskins for RG3)… folks, I give you the Chicago Bears.My guess is that the Bears end up with the #7 pick.  If they want Mariota or Winston at #1, I'd take the deal the Redskins gave the Rams in a NY minute.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6506

      Sure, the numbers are low for every position.  Except that the argument isn't "Which positions are the hardest to develop in the late rounds".  We want to understand what are the chances of drafting a QB late and him developing - well if we look at all the draft eligible players from 2000 to 2010 there were 144 QBs picked.  Of that group, those picked after the 1st round had a 3.4% chance of developing into a franchise QB.

      Ok. So in that same time span there has been 288 running backs picked, and of those picked outside of the first round 5% have developed into consistent starters. Is it a waste to take running backs outside of the first round? Are you seeing what I am saying? Those numbers are completely made up, but hopefully you get the point I am trying to make.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3027

      Let’s also be honest about late round QBs such as Brady or Russell Wilson. No one thought they would be great. Wilson surprised everyone by being a stud day one and no one thought that, period. Pete Carroll had the trouser marbles to believe what he saw and Belicheck was forced to give brady a shot with Bledsoe getting hurt.The late rounders that get a shot and are very good right off the bat continue. The late round guys who are decent or maybe show a little something get discarded fairly quickly. Would they eventually turn into something? Who knows and most aren't willing to wait and see.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6506

      In the end, your chances of getting a franchise player at any position is almost certainly less than 5%. Your chances are slightly higher in top 50 picks, but only slightly. The draft is still a crapshoot even after so many decades and so many supposed experts. To say you can’t get a QB outside of the first round because the chances are too low, and to just eliminate that possibility from your plan of attack….is asinine. If Emery really believes and practices this theory, he has automatically take himself out of the running for Drew Brees, Brett Favre, Tom Brady, Russell Wilson, Colin Kaepernick, Andy Dalton, Jake Plummer, Kordel Stewart, Brad Johnson, Derek Carr, Joe Montana, Teddy Bridgewater, Matt Shaub, Brian Griese, Nick Foles, Kyle Orton, David Garrard, Matt Hasselbeck, Matt Cassel, and Derek Anderson. Now out of those 20 names, not all of those guys are elite franchise guys, but around half of them are. Plus, a good dependable back up is very important in today's NFL. So to just write off drafting quarterbacks in the middle and late rounds is a horrible strategy and you are only hurting your franchise by doing so.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3169

      Sure, the numbers are low for every position.  Except that the argument isn't "Which positions are the hardest to develop in the late rounds".  We want to understand what are the chances of drafting a QB late and him developing - well if we look at all the draft eligible players from 2000 to 2010 there were 144 QBs picked.  Of that group, those picked after the 1st round had a 3.4% chance of developing into a franchise QB.

      Ok. So in that same time span there has been 288 running backs picked, and of those picked outside of the first round 5% have developed into consistent starters. Is it a waste to take running backs outside of the first round? Are you seeing what I am saying? Those numbers are completely made up, but hopefully you get the point I am trying to make.

      RB's are a bad and irrelevant comparison.  The new rules have made the RB obsolete in certain terms.  In years past, the RB was the "franchise" player, now they're irrelevant.  From 2000 to 2010, of the 211 RB's drafted - 83% were taken after the 1st round.  Sure, that's a high number, but when you see that 96% were taken after the first round since 2011, you see that RB's have very little value anymore.Also, as Tog said before, if you draft a LT and he doesn't work out, he may be able to move to LG or RT or RG and be productive.  Same as if he were a backup.  That goes for every other position on the field... except QB.  You have 1 that takes 99% of the teams snaps.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3392

      In the end, your chances of getting a franchise player at any position is almost certainly less than 5%. Your chances are slightly higher in top 50 picks, but only slightly. The draft is still a crapshoot even after so many decades and so many supposed experts. To say you can't get a QB outside of the first round because the chances are too low, and to just eliminate that possibility from your plan of attack....is asinine. If Emery really believes and practices this theory, he has automatically take himself out of the running for Drew Brees, Brett Favre, Tom Brady, Russell Wilson, Colin Kaepernick, Andy Dalton, Jake Plummer, Kordel Stewart, Brad Johnson, Derek Carr, Joe Montana, Teddy Bridgewater, Matt Shaub, Brian Griese, Nick Foles, Kyle Orton, David Garrard, Matt Hasselbeck, Matt Cassel, and Derek Anderson. Now out of those 20 names, not all of those guys are elite franchise guys, but around half of them are. Plus, a good dependable back up is very important in today's NFL. So to just write off drafting quarterbacks in the middle and late rounds is a horrible strategy and you are only hurting your franchise by doing so.

      I think the problem JD is that the gap between having an elite QB and a non-elite QB is much larger than the gap between a elite v. non-elite at other positions. btw, for what it's worth, Emery took David Fales in the 6th round in 2014.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3392

      Just for kicks I looked a the running backs, just from 2013:37 Giovani Bernard Bengals North Carolina48 Le'Veon Bell Steelers Michigan State58 Montee Ball Broncos Wisconsin61 Eddie Lacy Packers Alabama62 Christine Michael Seahawks Texas A&M96 Knile Davis Chiefs Arkansas125 Johnathan Franklin Packers UCLA130 Kyle Juszczyk Ravens Harvard131 Marcus Lattimore 49ers South Carolina140 Stepfan Taylor Cardinals Stanford151 Joseph Randle Cowboys Oklahoma State154 Chris Thompson Redskins Florida State160 Zac Stacy Rams Vanderbilt164 Mike Gillislee Dolphins Florida181 Latavius Murray Raiders Central Florida182 Kenjon Barner Panthers Oregon187 Andre Ellington Cardinals Clemson189 Mike James Buccaneers Miami (FL)190 Rex Burkhead Bengals Nebraska194 Spencer Ware Seahawks Louisiana State199 Theo Riddick Lions Notre Dame204 Braden Wilson Chiefs Kansas State215 Tommy Bohanon Jets Wake Forest228 Jawan Jamison Redskins Rutgers230 Kerwynn Williams Colts Utah State253 Michael Cox Giants MassachusettsNot a lot of misses there.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 4623

      I think you nailed it in an earlier post. I think a lot of the later round guys not developing has something to do with how much time they get. Just look in Tampa for example. Freeman got 5 years to flame out because he was  first rounder and expectations. Glennon got 18 games.

      Freeman wasn't given anything.

      Freeman was bad every year except his 2nd season. I'd say he was given plenty of time to prove what he was. He also got two coaches fired in the meantime.

      If Glennon had the season Freeman had his second year he'd still be playing. But he didn't and here we are.

      I knew you were going to make me do this.Freemans 1st 5 starts of his 2nd year....6TDs vs 3 INTs 58% completion208 ypg5.24 y/a76.6 passer rating114 rushing yardsGlennons 1st 5 starts of his 2nd year (only 5)....9TDs vs 6 INTs56% completion259 ypg7.24 y/a81.6 passer rating30 rushing yardsHuh?The biggest difference between the start of Freemans 2nd year and Glennons is the record. Freeman was 3-2 and Glennon was 1-4. That's it. Freeman had a better run game and better defense and as a result won more games with very similar production.Josh Freemans offense put up 16 points a game and Mike Glennons' put up 21 points a game. At this point you can't even argue they had similar level of talent. This 2014 Bucs team is horrible.

      On an aggregate level, their numbers may be similarly unimpressive, but situationally, Freeman was able to do more. Trailing 14-3 in week 1 against the Browns, Freeman was able to throw 2 TD passes, including the game winner with 6:45 left to win the game. Likewise in week 5 against the Bengals, Freeman was able to rally from down 14-21 in the 4th to throw a TD to tie the game with 1:26 left and then to drive for a game winning field goal as time expired. Glennon lost two overtime games this season. In week 5 against the Saints the Bucs didn't score again after midway through the 3rd quarter and Glennon took a safety to give New Orleans an extra 2 points. The Bucs offense totalled 20 yards in the entire 4th quarter. Similarly in week 9 against the Browns, Glennon was able to get the Bucs a 17-16 lead in the 4th quarter, but he went into his shell and the Bucs got 11 yards on 2 drives before it was garbage time. If Glennon was able to rise to the occasion like Freeman did in 2010 he'd still be playing.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6506

      btw, for what it's worth, Emery took David Fales in the 6th round in 2014.

      Which just shows that even he doesn't buy what he was selling. If there is a QB you really like still on the board in the middle or late rounds....you'd be a fool to pass on him. Period. As many have said, quarterback is more important than any other position, so even if the odds are 5 in 150....the potential payoff is worth spending that mid round pick.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3169

      Just for kicks I looked a the running backs, just from 2013:37 Giovani Bernard Bengals North Carolina48 Le'Veon Bell Steelers Michigan State58 Montee Ball Broncos Wisconsin61 Eddie Lacy Packers Alabama62 Christine Michael Seahawks Texas A&M96 Knile Davis Chiefs Arkansas125 Johnathan Franklin Packers UCLA130 Kyle Juszczyk Ravens Harvard131 Marcus Lattimore 49ers South Carolina140 Stepfan Taylor Cardinals Stanford151 Joseph Randle Cowboys Oklahoma State154 Chris Thompson Redskins Florida State160 Zac Stacy Rams Vanderbilt164 Mike Gillislee Dolphins Florida181 Latavius Murray Raiders Central Florida182 Kenjon Barner Panthers Oregon187 Andre Ellington Cardinals Clemson189 Mike James Buccaneers Miami (FL)190 Rex Burkhead Bengals Nebraska194 Spencer Ware Seahawks Louisiana State199 Theo Riddick Lions Notre Dame204 Braden Wilson Chiefs Kansas State215 Tommy Bohanon Jets Wake Forest228 Jawan Jamison Redskins Rutgers230 Kerwynn Williams Colts Utah State253 Michael Cox Giants MassachusettsNot a lot of misses there.

      That's because the NFL doesn't lean on the run like it used too.  It's a passing league and RB's are just a complimentary nowadays.  If you have  a good QB and OLine, you will almost assuredly have a good RB by default.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1858

      In the end, your chances of getting a franchise player at any position is almost certainly less than 5%. Your chances are slightly higher in top 50 picks, but only slightly. The draft is still a crapshoot even after so many decades and so many supposed experts. To say you can't get a QB outside of the first round because the chances are too low, and to just eliminate that possibility from your plan of attack....is asinine. If Emery really believes and practices this theory, he has automatically take himself out of the running for Drew Brees, Brett Favre, Tom Brady, Russell Wilson, Colin Kaepernick, Andy Dalton, Jake Plummer, Kordel Stewart, Brad Johnson, Derek Carr, Joe Montana, Teddy Bridgewater, Matt Shaub, Brian Griese, Nick Foles, Kyle Orton, David Garrard, Matt Hasselbeck, Matt Cassel, and Derek Anderson. Now out of those 20 names, not all of those guys are elite franchise guys, but around half of them are. Plus, a good dependable back up is very important in today's NFL. So to just write off drafting quarterbacks in the middle and late rounds is a horrible strategy and you are only hurting your franchise by doing so.

      You're confusing two arguments Jdouble (which you also do when you refer to David Fales).Finding a "franchise starter" (Emery's term) is not the same as finding a competent backup.  Lots of competent backups are found in the later rounds.  Pick any team at random and you'll find at least one late round QB on the roster.  Emery is hoping Fales becomes a competent backup, not a franchise QB.And yes, the chances of a franchise player at any position are low in the late rounds. Except you're also ignoring the differences between the QB and other positions.  If you find a rotational player in the 6th round, that's a big win.  But there are no rotational QBs.  You're starter east up 95% of your snaps.  That also means your 5th round DE is getting a lot of practice and game snaps (even if 4th in the rotation) that you're QB never gets. I don't even have to do research to know that franchise players are found in the late rounds at a MUCH higher rate than QBs. Let's pick a draft at random (2011!, feel free to pick your own): Richard Sherman, Julius Thomas, Cecil Shorts, Buster Skrine, Jordan Cameron, Marcus Cannon, and Byron Maxwell.  That's just me scanning quickly through the draft list and doesn't include competent backups (who are currently starting) like Chykie Brown, Kilgore, and Anthony Sherman.Lastly, Emery says QB "after the 3rd round"  So he's not talking about Carr or Brees or Favre.  I really don't know where that list comes from.  Bridgewater is a 1st round pick. 

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6506

      I was really just referring to the “developing late-round quarterbacks doesn’t work” quoted in the title of this thread. I’m not sure I ever even read the whole piece. I guess that is my bad. If he is saying after the 3rd round, then that changes things a bit. Quarterbacks taken in the 4th through 7th should be taken in hopes that they become competent back ups….and you might just get lucky and find a gem starter now and then. I agree with that. Still, it seems like you are saying a rotational DE or RB from the late rounds has more value than a back up quarterback...I can't agree with that. With today's strict concussion protocol, now more than ever, a good back up is very very important.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3392

      I think you have to be realistic about where the best QBs come from, but you also shouldn’t be fatalistic either. I really like the Ron Wolf era Packers approach - they regularly drafted late round guys: Ty Detmer, Mark Brunnel, Aaron Brooks, Matt Hasselbeck are the most prominent ones. I'd also spend money on a positional scout that really knew QBs. His only job would be to track college QBs. 

      Please wait…

Viewing 78 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.