The Mid Round QB fallacy

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by PHazard

I Dont see Clausen being available at the end of the 1st round. There are simply too many teams that need a QB this season (rams, bills, seahawks, browns, jaguars, broncos, raiders, maybe vikings, panthers, cardinals). And wit Clausen somehow movin up in mock drafts as of late. i would be EXTREMELY suprised to see Jimmy Clausen around @ the end of the 1st. If we've traded back and he is there then it would be a more logical choice. FOR THE LOVE OF EVERYTHING HOLY, MARY MOTHER OF JESUS, PLEASE DO NOT LET US DRAFT COLT MCCOY!

There are a lot of teams that need a QB, but a lot of them are going to go the veteran route. Come draft day, there might be two or three teams that need one, and one of those might be Carolina who doesn't pick before we pick twice. Arizona could be the other, and they don't pick until right around 25. Every team, however, has needs outside of quarterback.

There's also a bunch of teams that will be perfectly happy to test the draft later. Cleveland's run by Holmgren now, and he's NEVER taken a QB in the first round.

Someone is going to take Bradford within the top ten picks. After that, who knows.

[GTripp0012]

You also have to consider that the Raiders don't think they need a quarterback, even though they obviously do.

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Jevan Snead-4th round. You heard it here first...and probably last

Dan LeFevour.

[PHazard]

yeah i was going based on my opinion. but still that makes it 8 or 9 teams that pick before then and there are only 2 QB's considered "elite"

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

It takes a minute to adjust from the NCAA to the NFL. Once that happens the elite QB prospect becomes an elite NFL QB. The difference is in being a prospect, and actually making the transition to an elite NFL QB. In the cases I mentioned earlier in the thread, the elite QBs made those around them better and the teams showed marked improvement without a drastic change of personnel.

No. Both Mannings and others have gone into teams that were in bad shape. Because the team around them is bad, doesn't mean the QB is bad. The QB will take time and have growing pains, especially in the first year in that situation, but it doesn't make him "non-elite". Once the QB "gets it" at the NFL level, he begins to make others around him better. If you put an elite QB in a good situation (Rivers), he will produce faster.

The situation is important, but if the organization is solid and not an Oakland, Cincy, etc. The team will not be in terrible shape for too long. Having an elite QB will make that average team good, and that good team great.

A kid coming out of college can be rated and evaulated as an elite QB, if he makes the transition then the evaluators were right. If not, they made a poor evalaution or the QB went to a terrible long-term situation. It's why elite QBs don't grow on tress and are so important to playoff success in the NFL.

That's like saying all NFL lineman have the requiste skill to play OL, or all NFL RBs have the skill to play RB.....but I don't think there's an argument that a healthy Chris Samuels is leaps and bounds better than Stephon Heyer or Levi Jones. Similarly a LT in his prime is far better than Ladell Betts.

As fans we didn't have all the scouting info and reports that we get to see now, but I recall questions about Shuler's mental abilities before he was drafted.

Franchises don't normally "create" franschise QBs except in extreme cases (Brady, Montana). But I agree that having the tools in place to help the elite QB be successful are important. But those pieces can be built around the QB. The teams that draft QBs in the first round and never seem to succeed are generally poor franshices, with poor talent evaluators.

Here's an example, Manning is an elite QB, he went to a bad situation in Indy. Indy built around him and has been consistently good. Kurt Warner (not an elite QB IMO) has success in the greatest show on turf. He has Marshall Faulk, Torry Holt, Issac Bruce, etc. After that he struggles, then when paired with Fitz and Boldin has success. Warner is not an elite QB, he needs the pieces around him to be successful. (For all you Warner fans, I don't need to see his resume, the guy is good, just not elite).

Manning had a third year Marvin Harrison when he got there, and a fourth year Marshall Faulk, who was later replaced by Edgerrin James. And they had a 1997 1st round draft pick at LT named Tarik Glenn. It was a bad team anyway, in part because the defense there was terrible. Still, it was five years or so before the guy became a perennial all-pro. And we're talking about the greatest of all time.

I don't think you can separate this organization from the Oakland's and Cincinnati's of the world. We have been more successful than those franchises, but we also have way more resources year-to-year. On one hand, I think you need to assume that we're going to be better in the future than we have been in the past regarding player development. That's the only way we can improve to a team that wins in line with our resources.

But on the other hand, what's here is what's been built by that inept management. We don't have a Marvin Harrison in either Thomas or Kelly, we don't have a Marshall Faulk, and we certainly don't have a Tarik Glenn. We just have a pair of tight ends. That doesn't mean we can't draft the next Reggie Wayne or Edgerrin James in the future, and certainly if the next Peyton Manning is out there, we can wait.

But when we're comparing the offenses, we're best compared to the situations that Tim Couch and David Carr failed in. Any advantages we have over those expansion teams is on the defensive side of the ball, which won't affect the quarterbacks numbers very much.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Manning had a third year Marvin Harrison when he got there, and a fourth year Marshall Faulk, who was later replaced by Edgerrin James. And they had a 1997 1st round draft pick at LT named Tarik Glenn. It was a bad team anyway, in part because the defense there was terrible. Still, it was five years or so before the guy became a perennial all-pro. And we're talking about the greatest of all time.

Actually, Manning made the Pro Bowl in 1999-2000 and 2002-09. My point is the cast didn't change much from 1998 (3-13) to 1999 (13-3) it was Manning (elite QB) that made the difference. Look at Eli, similar scenario, no drastic personnel change except the upgrade from Toomer to Burress from year 1 to year 2, but a record improvement from 6-10 to 10-6, Burress contributed but certainly wasn't the X-factor for winning 4 additional games, it was Eli.

I don't think you can separate this organization from the Oakland's and Cincinnati's of the world.

BLASPHEMY!!!

But when we're comparing the offenses, we're best compared to the situations that Tim Couch and David Carr failed in. Any advantages we have over those expansion teams is on the defensive side of the ball, which won't affect the quarterbacks numbers very much.

Bad comparison, if Zorn was still here, maybe. But to compare Shanahan / Allen to the mess in Houston under Capers, or Cleveland under whoever it was.....no way.

We have capable receivers, Moss is solid when he gives 100%, Thomas / Kelly have the physical tools and should develop under the new regime with a better system (and better QB). RB is a mess right now, but Shanahan has a knack for fixing that. I contend that Heyer at RT, Rinehart at RG can be solid. Dock is solid. We can get an LT with our 2nd rounder. Rabach...meh, that may need to be fixed next year. Even if we can't fix all the problems this year, the rest can be addressed next off-season when the rook (Clausen) is ready to hit stride. JC is our guy for at least the early part of the season, so we deal with it. If he improves under MS great and the rook sits, if not, rook goes in takes his lumps and we get ready for a great 2011.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Actually, Manning made the Pro Bowl in 1999-2000 and 2002-09. My point is the cast didn't change much from 1998 (3-13) to 1999 (13-3) it was Manning (elite QB) that made the difference. Look at Eli, similar scenario, no drastic personnel change except the upgrade from Toomer to Burress from year 1 to year 2, but a record improvement from 6-10 to 10-6, Burress contributed but certainly wasn't the X-factor for winning 4 additional games, it was Eli.

Well, first, I think the point was missed. The point wasn't "Manning was a product of the system, his accomplishments are irrelevant." It's that the Colts spent their 1996 first round pick on a wide receiver who became a hall of famer (with Manning), and they spent their 1997 first round pick on a left tackle who protected Manning's blind side from 1998-2006. The point isn't that Indy didn't need Manning to be great, the point was that 1998 Indy is a poor comparison to where the Redskins are. A better comparison would be 1996 or 1997 Indy.

Jason Campbell might only be as good as Jim Harbaugh, but the Colts weren't trying to figure out how they could get Jake Plummer to replace him.

I am not kidding when I point out that the last TWO first round picks the Redskins have spent on offense (in the draft, not via trade) are Jason Campbell and Patrick Ramsey. Apparently the answer to our offensive problems is that we haven't spent a first round pick on a quarterback in a while.

Bad comparison, if Zorn was still here, maybe. But to compare Shanahan / Allen to the mess in Houston under Capers, or Cleveland under whoever it was.....no way.

We have capable receivers, Moss is solid when he gives 100%, Thomas / Kelly have the physical tools and should develop under the new regime with a better system (and better QB). RB is a mess right now, but Shanahan has a knack for fixing that. I contend that Heyer at RT, Rinehart at RG can be solid. Dock is solid. We can get an LT with our 2nd rounder. Rabach...meh, that may need to be fixed next year. Even if we can't fix all the problems this year, the rest can be addressed next off-season when the rook (Clausen) is ready to hit stride. JC is our guy for at least the early part of the season, so we deal with it. If he improves under MS great and the rook sits, if not, rook goes in takes his lumps and we get ready for a great 2011.

The rest of this is a faith-based argument. The situation isn't inherently any better because Allen/Shanahan is in charge now. They haven't made any meaningful moves yet.

Which is not to say that I disagree with everything you've written here. The receivers may very well be capable and toolzy, but one thing they aren't is good. I've seen Shanahan do some great work with his running backs, but that was after he put an OL in place. I think we can get away without spending a top two round pick at the position, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that we will be able to run the ball next year.

Which LT would you propose we get with the second round pick? If there's 8-10 teams that need left tackles, why did this player slip through to the second round? What do we armchair GMs know that the rest of the NFL is missing?

Heyer and Rinehart both flashed last year, but Rinehart is going to need the help from a strong RT, and Heyer is probably incapable of not being exposed over 16 games. I'd keep him as a first backup, as over a four game stretch, he's good enough to play, but if the plan to improve is this faulty, how in the world can we expect the execution to be flawless?

I commend you for laying this plan out there, but I'm struggling to see where any improvement is going to come from. It seems like mediocrity is the end game, but it will be more tolerable if Clausen is the guy providing it?

Presumably, it's the future drafts that will provide the pieces that we will actually be winning with. So, why wait?

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

We have capable receivers, Moss is solid when he gives 100%, Thomas / Kelly have the physical tools and should develop under the new regime with a better system (and better QB).

Lol, reminds me of my new sig. Though if you think about it it's not to far fetched. Moss isn't very consistent but when he's productive he's amazing. Sort of like Reggie Bush.

[GTripp0012]

And, even though he's not a mid rounder, I'm going to nominate Paul Justin for most valuable quarterback to never really have a career

Paul Justin NFL & AFL Football Statistics | Pro-Football-Reference.com

I also submit the depth chart of Trent Green-Kurt Warner-Paul Justin for the 1999 Rams to be the strongest depth chart at the QB position in the history of the NFL.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

It takes a minute to adjust from the NCAA to the NFL. Once that happens the elite QB prospect becomes an elite NFL QB. The difference is in being a prospect, and actually making the transition to an elite NFL QB.

Disagree.
There aren't many 'elite' QBs.
Imo being an elite QB only happens when mastery is reached and if its reached at all it doesn't happen overnight.

No. Both Mannings and others have gone into teams that were in bad shape. Because the team around them is bad, doesn't mean the QB is bad.

Disagree.
First while i think Eli is a good QB i don't think he's 'elite'.
Second i don't think Peyton was in a bad team they had talent and a strong front office.
The Giants also had talent and a strong FO.

The situation is important, but if the organization is solid and not an Oakland, Cincy, etc. The team will not be in terrible shape for too long. Having an elite QB will make that average team good, and that good team great.

Well that's my point if a QB was the capable independent of the situation around them he would be able to reach that elite level like you said.
And i think a QB can have success and stive to become eilte only when there are pieces around them.

A kid coming out of college can be rated and evaulated as an elite QB, if he makes the transition then the evaluators were right. If not, they made a poor evalaution or the QB went to a terrible long-term situation. It's why elite QBs don't grow on tress and are so important to playoff success in the NFL.

Your basically making my point here, an 'elite' QB or even a 'franchise' QB cannot be determine until they reach that status.

That's like saying all NFL lineman have the requiste skill to play OL, or all NFL RBs have the skill to play RB.....but I don't think there's an argument that a healthy Chris Samuels is leaps and bounds better than Stephon Heyer or Levi Jones. Similarly a LT in his prime is far better than Ladell Betts.

Actually no its not because were talking specifically about QBs.
But, if you want to extend my logic to other position it would go like this:
an UDFA C like Jeff Saturaday can become a pro-bowl Center an 1st round/1st pick OT like Mike Williams can be out of football. Denver Bronco's produced many 1,000 yard backs provided they could learn the 1 cut zone read system; regardless of draft position.

As fans we didn't have all the scouting info and reports that we get to see now, but I recall questions about Shuler's mental abilities before he was drafted.

Maybe, but i never heard them and Heath is a pretty smart guy.
(Imo he's still the best QB prospect i can remember)

Franchises don't normally "create" franschise QBs except in extreme cases (Brady, Montana).

Disagree.
Mike Holmgren was a virtual QB factory Favre, Brunell, Hasselbeck and many other back-ups.

But I agree that having the tools in place to help the elite QB be successful are important. But those pieces can be built around the QB. The teams that draft QBs in the first round and never seem to succeed are generally poor franshices, with poor talent evaluators.

Again, you're making my point.

Warner is not an elite QB, he needs the pieces around him to be successful.

I don't understand how you can say that Eli is elite and Warner isn't.
And all the good QBs have pieces around them.

I get what you're saying but i don't think your seeing what i'm saying.
I guess we'll agree to disagree.
Good discussion though.

Anyway, HTTR!

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Which LT would you propose we get with the second round pick? If there's 8-10 teams that need left tackles, why did this player slip through to the second round? What do we armchair GMs know that the rest of the NFL is missing?

Charles Brown may be there (??). If we don't get the LT, then we look at Pouncey as an upgrade to Rabach, maybe trade back then Asamoah, Veldheer, Ducasse are possibilities

I commend you for laying this plan out there, but I'm struggling to see where any improvement is going to come from. It seems like mediocrity is the end game, but it will be more tolerable if Clausen is the guy providing it?

Presumably, it's the future drafts that will provide the pieces that we will actually be winning with. So, why wait?

Mediocrity is exactly what I'm looking to avoid (long term). 2010 isn't going to be a banner year with or without a franchise QB. We just differ on the evaluation of Clausen is all, you see him as equal or a slight upgrade over Campbell. I see him having a strong probability of developing into a top 10 or elite QB. Outside of the difference in Clausen, I'm all for grabbing the LT at #4 if Clausen is gone, I don't think Bradford has the upside of Clausen and wouldn't take him at #4.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by PHazard

. FOR THE LOVE OF EVERYTHING HOLY, MARY MOTHER OF JESUS, PLEASE DO NOT LET US DRAFT COLT MCCOY!

What do you have against McCoy?
Especially in the 2nd round?
Any knock on McCoy is likely shared with Bradford?

I think McCoy has the tools to be a fine NFL QB.
He reminds me of someone that Shanahan has coached before.
And its a comparison i'm embarrassed to make.

But on completely anecdotal note if anyone listens to Mike&Mike?
Does anyone recall Big Mike mention in passing how he ran into Mike Shanahan at an ND game earlier this year?

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Charles Brown may be there (??). If we don't get the LT, then we look at Pouncey as an upgrade to Rabach, maybe trade back then Asamoah, Veldheer, Ducasse are possibilities

Mediocrity is exactly what I'm looking to avoid (long term). 2010 isn't going to be a banner year with or without a franchise QB. We just differ on the evaluation of Clausen is all, you see him as equal or a slight upgrade over Campbell. I see him having a strong probability of developing into a top 10 or elite QB. Outside of the difference in Clausen, I'm all for grabbing the LT at #4 if Clausen is gone, I don't think Bradford has the upside of Clausen and wouldn't take him at #4.

Taking Okung at #4 and Pouncey in the 2nd would sure help this o-line get to where we want them to be a lot faster. As you mentioned, Dockery, Rinehart, and Heyer could be solid this year. And taking someone like Veldheer would almost certainly add to the competition. In fact, he could turn out to be a steal. The new line coach mentioned the importance of chemistry. The sooner we get them together the better.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

Taking Okung at #4 and Pouncey in the 2nd would sure help this o-line get to where we want them to be a lot faster. As you mentioned, Dockery, Rinehart, and Heyer could be solid this year. And taking someone like Veldheer would almost certainly add to the competition. In fact, he could turn out to be a steal. The new line coach mentioned the importance of chemistry. The sooner we get them together the better.

That's a great scenario. I can't wait for the combine and draft.

With all the draft excitement, we should try a Warpath Mock Draft again this year. It didn't work out as planned last time, but maybe worth a shot this year?

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Which LT would you propose we get with the second round pick? If there's 8-10 teams that need left tackles, why did this player slip through to the second round? What do we armchair GMs know that the rest of the NFL is missing?

Heyer and Rinehart both flashed last year, but Rinehart is going to need the help from a strong RT, and Heyer is probably incapable of not being exposed over 16 games. I'd keep him as a first backup, as over a four game stretch, he's good enough to play, but if the plan to improve is this faulty, how in the world can we expect the execution to be flawless?

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Charles Brown may be there (??). If we don't get the LT, then we look at Pouncey as an upgrade to Rabach, maybe trade back then Asamoah, Veldheer, Ducasse are possibilities

I've tried to envision a scenario where we upgrade the OL independent of the 4th pick and while i can come up with improvements its only because of how bad the OL was last year.

LT-Stephon Heyer-it would require hope that healthy Heyer can show the promise he showed at the end of 2008 when he took over the LT spot from Samuels-Serviceable and hopefully good
LG-Dockery-Good
C-Rabach-serviceable- but maybe Edwin Williams is ready to step and his youth and strength gives him upside that Rabach lacks or Corey Lichtensteiger?
RG-Rinehart or Edwin Williams both showed some ability and are young players that could improve with playing time
RT-2nd round pick hopefully Duccase or Charles Brown lasts but i don't like hope as a strategy for landing OL via the draft or Tony Pashos

i think this OL or a similiar OL would be an improvement because they would be young players building cohesion and could grow together and improve with playing experience

But, imo it would be easier and yield greater improvement if we began fixing the OL by solidifying either OT with the 4th pick.