The Mid Round QB fallacy

[Schneed10]

Don't get me wrong though, something has to be done about LT and the rest of the line. I don't think we'll ever win a SB with Levi Jones or Stephon Heyer starting at LT, we've got to get better at that spot. It's just I'd gladly get behind rolling the dice on Bradford or Clausen if Shanahan thought he's found his new Elway. Even though we need the LT upgrade, the QB takes priority.

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Actually I'm not calling for a quick fix, because my opinion is colored by a sound understanding of recent league history when it comes to QBs. Peyton Manning took several years to reach the AFC Championship and ultimately win a Super Bowl. Drew Brees was mediocre early in his SD days, then got better with experience, and eventually reached all-pro level. Matt Ryan was impressive his first two years but he hasn't yet made the leap to become an elite QB. Phillip Rivers and Eli Manning took a few years to really get up and running (Eli's not even elite, but he still took time to win the SB).

I understand that a QB will most likely take time to reach that level of dominant force. And I understand that it takes a strong team around him, too.

But the point remains, it's a lot easier to win a SB with a dominant QB and solid LT than it is to win one with a dominant LT and a solid QB. That's a much more important point than the fact that 1st round offensive lineman are more likely to pan out than 1st round QBs.

Yes but I think when you have the #4 pick, whether they have a better chance to pan out becomes pretty important. In fact that is one of the factors I'm using to form an opinion. I've read it written of Okung, "As close to can't miss as you can get." Samuels went out with an injury/condition that is career threatening. Levi Jones was picked up in the middle of the season because we needed a LT so bad. Good thing no one else wanted him.
Even the experts can't agree to who is the better prospect, Clausen or Bradford. Supposedly neither has an "elite" arm, Clausen is stronger but Bradford is more accurate etc.
If the question for this team this year is, do you take the position of greatest need with the #4 pick by taking the consensus best LT in the draft who is as close to can't miss as you can get, or, do you take a lottery ticket on an elite QB, assuming there even is one, and hope you pick the right one? Give me the tackle.

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Don't get me wrong though, something has to be done about LT and the rest of the line. I don't think we'll ever win a SB with Levi Jones or Stephon Heyer starting at LT, we've got to get better at that spot. It's just I'd gladly get behind rolling the dice on Bradford or Clausen if Shanahan thought he's found his new Elway. Even though we need the LT upgrade, the QB takes priority.

If he thinks that, he'd be stupid not to take him.

[sportscurmudgeon]

I don't think Sam Bradford - - or any QB in this year's draft - - is the new John Elway. I suspect that Mike Shanahan - - having coached Elway and seen him on game film a thousand times - - will not equate any of the QBs coming out of college in 2010 with John Elway.

[Ruhskins]

Redskins Draft Needs by Scouts, Inc.:

Washington Redskins

Top needs:
1. OT: LT Chris Samuels will likely retire and RT Stephon Heyer is inconsistent at both OT spots -- but he is not terrible. He is a restricted free agent and will likely be tendered and given one more year to improve. Levi Jones is an unrestricted free agent and not the answer at LT.

2. QB: What does the new coaching staff do with Jason Campbell? His contract could be up, but is he a guy you give one more shot to? He has good physical skills, but his supporting cast and coaching continuity has always been suspect. It's a big decision for this franchise and new coach Mike Shanahan.

3. RB: Shanahan knows Clinton Portis well, but that doesn't guarantee anything. Portis looks like an "old" 29-year-old back with durability issues and a questionable work ethic. Backup LaDell Betts is 30 and is coming off of knee surgery -- this is not a real stable position right now.

Other needs: OG, C, CB, S

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I'd say this is very much black-and-white thinking. You seem to hone in on two possible courses of action: draft best player available vs draft for need.

Couldn't (and shouldn't) teams be using a hybrid formula?

If the goal is to get better as a whole, teams should be drafting players for the value they provide over the player currently on the roster who will be displaced. So the possible Sam Bradford selection should be evaluated in light of the quality QB he's replacing, Jason Campbell. A Russell Okung selection should be evaluated in light of the T he's replacing, Stephon Heyer or Levi Jones (assuming Samuels retires). But further compounding matters is whether or not another player is available later in the draft who also represents an equal upgrade over the current roster.

And really, the crux of your argument is risk. You're saying that QBs are so hit and miss while Ts are more likely to pan out. Fair point. But I'd counter by noting that I'm not interested in getting better, I'm interested in getting great. It doesn't do much for me to see a great LT come on, protect a mediocre QB for years, and watch us fade in and out of mediocrity.

I'm interested in a player we can build around, who covers for the deficiencies of others, who makes the team a more attractive destination for free agents, and who makes his teammates better rather than playing at a level commensurate to his teammates.

Granted the risk is there, but so is the reward. I'm in the camp that feels Campbell is not championship material, in my mind no offensive line (save the Hogs) could make Campbell a SB winning QB. IF Shanny sees something in Bradford or Clausen, that elite potential, I say go for it. I get what you're saying, you need to be right.

But still, sack up and put the chips on the table, I'm tired of being a fringe playoff team every single year. Nothing transforms your franchise like an elite QB.

I'll say this: if the Redskins draft board ends up looking anything like mine, neither BPA nor draft for need nor a hybrid philosophy would result in taking a Quarterback.

And I think all teams should use a hybrid of the two. But it's worth pointing out that taking a quarterback at No. 4 probably isn't a hybrid of any sort, it's quite strictly BPA. It can't really be justified if one of the quarterbacks doesn't come out to #1 or #2 on the overall board. Which, by definition, we'd be picking the best player available.

The other thing that has to factor into the risk-reward matrix is the finance structure of the NFL draft. Prudence is dictated by the top ten picks in a way that the rest of the draft simply doesn't force one to return anything. When you pick in the 20-25 range, you can take a player who has a high bust potential if the athleticism can offer you a potential superstar, because he's easy to get away from if he sucks.

But taking a QB in the top five, the risk pretty much has to be non-existent. Maybe you shoot for Peyton Manning and end up with Eli. That's a miss, but it's financially excusable. But you can't afford to shoot for Peyton Manning and end up with Ryan Leaf. That's financially inexcusable.

As it still is with all positions that aren't quarterback. There's too many options at the top of the draft to settle for a mediocre prospect at a premium position in a sea of excellent talents. There's systematic risk in the NFL draft, even at the top, but most bust picks at the top five are just gianormous reaches as opposed to poor development cases. Later on in the round and the rest of draft, it's all about the development. What you can do with the player as opposed to what he is.

In the top five, what he already has been is a lot of the evaluation. Primarily because of dollars.

We can afford to pay anyone we draft. We just can't afford to miss, because instead of measuring in wins over replacement, you could easily be measuring in losses.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I'll say this: if the Redskins draft board ends up looking anything like mine, neither BPA nor draft for need nor a hybrid philosophy would result in taking a Quarterback.

And I think all teams should use a hybrid of the two. But it's worth pointing out that taking a quarterback at No. 4 probably isn't a hybrid of any sort, it's quite strictly BPA. It can't really be justified if one of the quarterbacks doesn't come out to #1 or #2 on the overall board. Which, by definition, we'd be picking the best player available.

The other thing that has to factor into the risk-reward matrix is the finance structure of the NFL draft. Prudence is dictated by the top ten picks in a way that the rest of the draft simply doesn't force one to return anything. When you pick in the 20-25 range, you can take a player who has a high bust potential if the athleticism can offer you a potential superstar, because he's easy to get away from if he sucks.

But taking a QB in the top five, the risk pretty much has to be non-existent. Maybe you shoot for Peyton Manning and end up with Eli. That's a miss, but it's financially excusable. But you can't afford to shoot for Peyton Manning and end up with Ryan Leaf. That's financially inexcusable.

As it still is with all positions that aren't quarterback. There's too many options at the top of the draft to settle for a mediocre prospect at a premium position in a sea of excellent talents. There's systematic risk in the NFL draft, even at the top, but most bust picks at the top five are just gianormous reaches as opposed to poor development cases. Later on in the round and the rest of draft, it's all about the development. What you can do with the player as opposed to what he is.

In the top five, what he already has been is a lot of the evaluation. Primarily because of dollars.

We can afford to pay anyone we draft. We just can't afford to miss, because instead of measuring in wins over replacement, you could easily be measuring in losses.

I don't understand the financial argument. Maybe in a salary capped NFL your point would hold water, but there will be no cap this year. Snyder will not balk at paying a QB 4th-pick-money if that's what Shanahan wants. And there will be no consequences to doing so.

In an uncapped world, any money paid to the player this season (whether via bonus or via salary) would never hit a salary cap even if the cap comes back to the league.

He'll hand out the $25 million bonus to the rookie QB, grant him $5 - $7 million salaries per year and never look back. With the amount DS can afford to spend on salaries, and is willing to spend on salaries, the limiting factor when it comes to player acquisition will not be money, it will be picks on hand and roster spots.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I don't understand the financial argument. Maybe in a salary capped NFL your point would hold water, but there will be no cap this year. Snyder will not balk at paying a QB 4th-pick-money if that's what Shanahan wants. And there will be no consequences to doing so.

In an uncapped world, any money paid to the player this season (whether via bonus or via salary) would never hit a salary cap even if the cap comes back to the league.

He'll hand out the $25 million bonus to the rookie QB, grant him $5 - $7 million salaries per year and never look back. With the amount DS can afford to spend on salaries, and is willing to spend on salaries, the limiting factor when it comes to player acquisition will not be money, it will be picks on hand and roster spots.

My argument really isn't about the signing, it's on the other end.

If a QB pick at No. 4 plays his way into a second contract, my point is moot.

The question I'm dealing with is: lets say that we draft a QB in 2010. We start with Campbell in 2010, and start, say 3-2, but injuries pile up and the team ends up distant in the division and we are 4-5. So we make the switch then and we finish 3-4 with the rookie QB. 7-9 finish. No discernible W/L production between the QBs.

But there might not (probably won't) be a 2011 season. If there's an agreement prior to 2012, we're talking about a half season of games by that point in their career. Now, I think contract is relevant. Because, at this point, how many years is the fourth overall pick given to make the playoffs before he is written off as an overdraft?

Hey, I fully understand that we don't (and shouldn't) have to make the decision on anyone's future before we make the draft choice. But with the magnitude of the contract, the point is that by the picks' first year as starter, it could be time for results or time to hit the road. And the pick has no real control over whether we play a football season in 2011 or not. But because of the magnitude of the contract, I do think it costs the player a year of development time if we don't play it.

So, yeah, I'd draft a quarterback this high if we had a team that could help him be successful right away without doing anything great. If he could solidify himself as the franchise PRIOR to the 2011 labor situation, then regardless of that outcome, I think we've filled an offensive hole. But I think that's asking a lot of a rookie. If there are as many questions about the quality of a QB draft pick a year from now as there are now, it's just going to be a cumbersome contract with no certainty.

Or put another way, if he's the best quarterback in the draft, take him. But if we're wrong on that, I'd rather flush 30 million down into the local sewer system tomorrow, and spend a high pick on a known issue. A top ten quarterback should be more than just a shot in the dark at greatness, it should actually be a great prospect.

[GTripp0012]

Something I firmly believe is that, if you're looking for the best overall quarterback in THIS draft, taking Bradford OR Clausen is the least creative way to get a ticket at the QB Roulette table. It's the teams who have no options at quarterback who have the most to gain from making a high pick on these players.

The reason that these players are rated above the others are because of a familiarity of NFL style route tree, and the ability to throw it. These are the most conventional prospects in the entire draft, as in the coaches have the least work to do with these two. If you have just nothing at the position, like Oakland, or like Carolina, these are the teams who could benefit the most. These guys are essentially need fillers...but unlike the free agent class, they are young, and have the potential to be probowlers.

If they get to greatness, they will get there perfectly conventionally. These are not special players, they are like very other first round pick before them. Just make sure to put a team around them, and both are accurate enough to pay dividends. Kind of like Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Culpepper, etc. Invest in them, and you'll get something. Maybe not a championship player, but something else.

If you're looking for a championship QB, it's way cheaper and more creative to go the route of a mid rounder, and offer then a spot on the depth chart that most other teams wouldn't. I know the numbers do say that most teams who make it all the way to the super bowl do it with first round quarterbacks, but that's the route we're currently on. It's not creative. It's expensive. And within a standard deviation from the mean projection, you're making a lateral move (2/3 chance of lateral move, 1/6 chance of notable improvement, 1/6 chance of large decline).

But the thing that would really eat at me...it shows no desire to take any steps towards becoming a championship team. It's just more of the same. Progress would have to wait while we window dress. I'm patient, but not that patient.

[PHazard]

Imma stir this up a bit. Hear me out. I would like to trade back to the backhalf of the 1st round and pick up a 2nd rounder with our #4 pick. But even if we don't, say we do the most logical thing and draft an OLineman (I dunno who on here stated that Okung was the consensus overall #1 OT but ESPN has Anthony Davis rated higher, food for thought) So say we take Okung or Davis, whoever Shanny favors. Then we have our 2nd round pick. Some ppl have linked us with Colt McCoy. I do not know what it is about him, but i DISLIKE everything about him as an NFL QB. He is not built like an NFL QB and i dont think he can even grow into an NFL Frame. But unless someone has already taken a chance on him, Tim Tebow would still be available. I KNOW I KNOW, i sound like Dan Snyder. But Im not a Tebow fan, but i would have Tebow SHEETS before i could stomach cheering for McCoy (although if hes a redskin, then i gotta support him). So as you can derive, im not a fan of either, but support tebow over mccoy. My case is simple. We are keeping Jason Campbell for another year. So he can benefit from learning under him. Wont be forced to start too soon. Also, he will have a YEAR workin with the Shanahan's and LeFleur to work on his throwing motion. He is a proven winner. He is extremely competitive and would be a positive locker room influence (it would be funny if he had to get in Portis's face to put him in his place) Now The Shanahan's are offensive masterminds and in Tebow's 1st year, i'm sure they could give him a few packages to run during the season in spot duty. Just to get him on an NFL field (ala vick, cribbs, etc) to help him adjust to speed and competition. Another thing, Tebow is tough as hell, so if it takes more than 1 season to rebuild our OLine, we'd have a tough bastard back there that could handle it. And Shanahan also likes a QB that can move the pocket, and is agile. Id only question his accuracy

All this is pure speculation and in fun, but it displays my dislike for McCoy and changes from the boring clausen/bradford arguement that we've had 100 times over.

[53Fan]

As I said before Okung is the consensus #1 LT, I think it's McShay? that is the one man who doesn't make it unanimous. As for the idea with Tebow, make it Dan Lefevour, Kafka, or someone like that and I'm all for it. But not in the second round.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Something I firmly believe is that, if you're looking for the best overall quarterback in THIS draft, taking Bradford OR Clausen is the least creative way to get a ticket at the QB Roulette table. It's the teams who have no options at quarterback who have the most to gain from making a high pick on these players.

The reason that these players are rated above the others are because of a familiarity of NFL style route tree, and the ability to throw it. These are the most conventional prospects in the entire draft, as in the coaches have the least work to do with these two. If you have just nothing at the position, like Oakland, or like Carolina, these are the teams who could benefit the most. These guys are essentially need fillers...but unlike the free agent class, they are young, and have the potential to be probowlers.

If they get to greatness, they will get there perfectly conventionally. These are not special players, they are like very other first round pick before them. Just make sure to put a team around them, and both are accurate enough to pay dividends. Kind of like Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Culpepper, etc. Invest in them, and you'll get something. Maybe not a championship player, but something else.

If you're looking for a championship QB, it's way cheaper and more creative to go the route of a mid rounder, and offer then a spot on the depth chart that most other teams wouldn't. I know the numbers do say that most teams who make it all the way to the super bowl do it with first round quarterbacks, but that's the route we're currently on. It's not creative. It's expensive. And within a standard deviation from the mean projection, you're making a lateral move (2/3 chance of lateral move, 1/6 chance of notable improvement, 1/6 chance of large decline).

But the thing that would really eat at me...it shows no desire to take any steps towards becoming a championship team. It's just more of the same. Progress would have to wait while we window dress. I'm patient, but not that patient.

Paralysis by over-analysis.

Please, no offense intended, but who cares about deviations and mean projections. We've got the 4th overall pick, it's not something we have very often, nor want to have very often. If Shanahan/Allen believe one or both is a franchise caliber QB, they damn well better get that guy at #4. If the franchise QB is gone, or they have neither rated as such, build the OL and get a QB later. It's pretty simple.

I'm a Clausen guy, he's franchise level IMO. Bradford, no. Money isn't an issue with an uncapped season. Will we have a top 5-10 pick next year, doubtful unless we're decimated by injury. So we won't have the chance to get a Locker or Luck in 2011.

EDIT: If the decision is not to go QB, I'm all for a trade down to pick up BPA at position of need (and we've got a few of those; T, G, C, QB, RB, LB, FS, and NT if we go to a base 3-4)

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Paralysis by over-analysis.

Please, no offense intended, but who cares about deviations and mean projections. We've got the 4th overall pick, it's not something we have very often, nor want to have very often. If Shanahan/Allen believe one or both is a franchise caliber QB, they damn well better get that guy at #4. If the franchise QB is gone, or they have neither rated as such, build the OL and get a QB later. It's pretty simple.

I'm a Clausen guy, he's franchise level IMO. Bradford, no. Money isn't an issue with an uncapped season. Will we have a top 5-10 pick next year, doubtful unless we're decimated by injury. So we won't have the chance to get a Locker or Luck in 2011.

EDIT: If the decision is not to go QB, I'm all for a trade down to pick up either more BPA at position of need (and we've got a few of those; T, G, C, QB, RB, LB, FS, and NT if we go to a base 3-4)

That's what it all comes down to isn't it? That and their feeling about JC. I wonder if they've given any thought to draft and trade? Too soon for that I guess.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Paralysis by over-analysis.

Please, no offense intended, but who cares about deviations and mean projections. We've got the 4th overall pick, it's not something we have very often, nor want to have very often. If Shanahan/Allen believe one or both is a franchise caliber QB, they damn well better get that guy at #4. If the franchise QB is gone, or they have neither rated as such, build the OL and get a QB later. It's pretty simple.

I'm a Clausen guy, he's franchise level IMO. Bradford, no. Money isn't an issue with an uncapped season. Will we have a top 5-10 pick next year, doubtful unless we're decimated by injury. So we won't have the chance to get a Locker or Luck in 2011.

EDIT: If the decision is not to go QB, I'm all for a trade down to pick up BPA at position of need (and we've got a few of those; T, G, C, QB, RB, LB, FS, and NT if we go to a base 3-4)

But what if they believe the current guy is a franchise guy AND that Clausen is also a franchise guy. Then what is the proper course of action if Clausen slips to No. 4?

And if we have the No. 4 pick in a year where the Quarterbacks are mid-round guys...tough crap, I guess. Go get something useful with the pick. You're probably right when you say we won't be picking top five again, but the NFL Draft appears to have slowed if not stopped producing elite NFL quarterbacks. I think we're in an age where you pretty much have to make one (from raw tools).

[PHazard]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

As I said before Okung is the consensus #1 LT, I think it's McShay? that is the one man who doesn't make it unanimous. As for the idea with Tebow, make it Dan Lefevour, Kafka, or someone like that and I'm all for it. But not in the second round.

lol i dont think you understand. the whole fake argument of my point was SO we could draft Tebow. All you basically did was agree that we should take an LT in the 1st round haha. I dont think i meant the pick seriously but there are some good points in taking him.

An additional point/bonus to taking Tebow, with all the shitty seasons we've been having since 1990, this year we could USE god on our side LMAO