The Mid Round QB fallacy

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Speaking of Campbell, here's a good take on the QB situation by Matt Williamson from Scouts, Inc.

Should the Redskins keep Jason Campbell?

For the most part, the answer is yes. I would tender him the highest offer with every intention of making him new coach Mike Shanahan's next quarterback project. But I would also listen to offers and would do diligent scouting on Sam Bradford and Jimmy Clausen in case an offer for Campbell was too good to pass up. I would prefer to add a franchise-caliber left tackle with that fourth overall draft pick, because I think the Redskins can get where they want to go with Campbell. The catch: They need to be patient with him and surround him with a vastly improved running game and offensive line. Campbell has gone through offensive system after offensive system at a remarkable rate, but he still shows glimpses of being a very solid NFL starting quarterback.

With Shanahan on board, Campbell finally would be fortunate enough to have some offensive stability in terms of the system, expectations and play-calling on a year-to-year basis. For once he wouldn't have to pick up a new language every offseason. Physically, Campbell has what it takes. He can move well enough to execute Shanahan's scheme, has a big strong arm to drive the ball down the field and is accurate enough. The tools are there, and he just had his best year as a starter. I contend that he could use a real confidence boost and some of the responsibility off his plate; he was simply asked to do way too much last year as nearly every aspect of the Redskins' offense crumbled around him. He was also sacked 43 times and was constantly under siege. But the beauty of sticking with Campbell is that the Redskins could then use the resources on building a quick zone-blocking offensive line and finding a ball carrier they can trust. Shanahan does have an impressive history of getting first-round production from mid-round running backs. I can live with the receiving corps that is in place and the defense.

If Campbell wants to truly take the next step he'll need to do two things

1. Work on his deep ball accuracy: Despite his strong arm Jason is horrible when it comes to throwing the deep ball.

2. Reading defenses better: From what I've seen and heard Jason is only average in this category. If he wants to stay around he'll need to do a better job of looking off safeties and not staring down receivers as well as making proper pre-snap reads.

It might only be two bullet points but they're easily two of the most important aspects of being an NFL QB.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

OK I've read this over a couple times now and it's still not making a lick of sense to me. The contract structure and salary paid to the player has no bearing, either now or down the road. Whether you pick a LT or a QB at 4 overall, you're still talking about a big contract. But there's no contract risk with either player. If the QB fails and we have to cut bait, there will be no signing bonus acceleration because any bonus would have been paid to him in an uncapped year and thus not relevant under a capped year, if there ever is one again.

In fact, the uncapped year is the best time to dole out large bonuses.

In an uncapped world like baseball, you have contract risk with signing players to big contracts for long terms. But this rookie QB would not have a guaranteed contract like a Vernon Wells does.

Cap consequences are irrelevant, and cash consequences are not a concern with Dan Snyder in charge.

The risk you run with a QB is not financial in any way. It is only that you'll miss on the player. But higher risk, higher reward. An LT might pan out more often, but I don't really care to go 8-8.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

If Campbell wants to truly take the next step he'll need to do two things

1. Work on his deep ball accuracy: Despite his strong arm Jason is horrible when it comes to throwing the deep ball.

Agreed that he needs to improve on the deep ball.

He needs to work on his deep ball accuracy on the go route/9 route.

There are some factors from a coaching stand point that will help JC improve also:

-better pass protection
o will help because he'll be more confident in the pocket
o there will be more chances to throw deep

-the receivers maintaining a more consistent 5 yard cushion from the sideline

-better running game to set-up play action

2. Reading defenses better: From what I've seen and heard Jason is only average in this category. If he wants to stay around he'll need to do a better job of looking off safeties and not staring down receivers as well as making proper pre-snap reads.

Gameplan and coaching will help him a great deal in this category.

Being able to dictate the coverages any QB faces greatly improves there success; and historically this something that Mike Shanahan has done in the past and i'm sure Mike has passed some of his tips along to his Kyle.

Further there will be huge difference in our current coaching staff's level of knowledge when it some to predicting and attack defenses then the previous on the job training offensive staff displayed.

There is no doubt in my mind that Kyle/LeFleur and Mike S. will have JC better prepared to read and attack any defenses this year.

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Not talking specifically about the Skins....

I don't think that teams with a decent starting QB in place at need to draft their QB top 5-10-15. (or teams with QB guru's).
I think the safer way to find a QB is to draft one after the 1st round every year; (plenty of team do this and try to groom a QB) or to nab a QB via FA or trade after the team is built.
Finding a QB via draft imo is a crap shoot no matter where you draft.
You just can't know.
Imo most QBs that are draft worthy are different by large %.
QBs like Heath Shuler fail unknown cast-offs like Kurt Warner succeed.
Because the QB is such a crap shoot taking one with a top pick 5 scares the heck out of me.
The lower you draft your QB the less investment there is and therefore more objective decisions can be made and if the QB isn't picking up the system (see JaMarcus Russell). Teams aren't worried about sunken cost because there isn't any and you have a good QB starting and you know you're gonna bring in another QB next year anyway.

I wish we would just drop the 'franchise' label.



I think there is no such thing as an elite QB until they become one.
Imo there is no such thing as an eilte QB prospect independent of the team and situation around them.

I think the physical differences between most NFL caliber QB prospect is mere %.

I think in a raw skills competition like the combine or an arm strength throwing/accuracy/ touch contest some will do better in different areas but at the end of the day most will be in the same ballpark. And even the ones the are the tops in every category like Shuler or Leaf still aren't locks to become good QBs much less elite.

Good points 30Gut. I think the bolded part is why it's been said that drafting a QB high who doesn't work out can set a franchise back 3-5 years. Teams spend so much time trying to justify the pick instead of cutting their losses and moving on. Not to mention they've probably missed out on a quality player at another position.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Agreed that he needs to improve on the deep ball.

He needs to work on his deep ball accuracy on the go route/9 route.

There are some factors from a coaching stand point that will help JC improve also:

-better pass protection
o will help because he'll be more confident in the pocket
o there will be more chances to throw deep

-the receivers maintaining a more consistent 5 yard cushion from the sideline

-better running game to set-up play action



Gameplan and coaching will help him a great deal in this category.

Being able to dictate the coverages any QB faces greatly improves there success; and historically this something that Mike Shanahan has done in the past and i'm sure Mike has passed some of his tips along to his Kyle.

Further there will be huge difference in our current coaching staff's level of knowledge when it some to predicting and attack defenses then the previous on the job training offensive staff displayed.

There is no doubt in my mind that Kyle/LeFleur and Mike S. will have JC better prepared to read and attack any defenses this year.

Very good points.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 30gut

I think there is no such thing as an elite QB until they become one.

Of course.

Imo there is no such thing as an eilte QB prospect independent of the team and situation around them.

An elite QB prospects early career success is of course dependent on the team around him. However, even with "pieces missing" the elite QB prospect makes other around him better within 2-3 years.

I think the physical differences between most NFL caliber QB prospect is mere %.

The physical differences in QBs is far more vast than a mere tenth of a second in the 40-time or 10lbs in a bench press. You've got their release, velocity, accuracy, accuracy on the move, foot speed, foot quickness, etc. Most importantly is the mental and leadership aspect of a QB prospect, what type of competition has the prospect played in college, what type of system, all important factors to consider.

And even the ones the are the tops in every category like Shuler or Leaf still aren't locks to become good QBs much less elite.

Shuler and Leaf were tops physically, but I believe both had question marks about their mental approach to the game.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

OK I've read this over a couple times now and it's still not making a lick of sense to me. The contract structure and salary paid to the player has no bearing, either now or down the road. Whether you pick a LT or a QB at 4 overall, you're still talking about a big contract. But there's no contract risk with either player. If the QB fails and we have to cut bait, there will be no signing bonus acceleration because any bonus would have been paid to him in an uncapped year and thus not relevant under a capped year, if there ever is one again.

In fact, the uncapped year is the best time to dole out large bonuses.

In an uncapped world like baseball, you have contract risk with signing players to big contracts for long terms. But this rookie QB would not have a guaranteed contract like a Vernon Wells does.

Cap consequences are irrelevant, and cash consequences are not a concern with Dan Snyder in charge.

The risk you run with a QB is not financial in any way. It is only that you'll miss on the player. But higher risk, higher reward. An LT might pan out more often, but I don't really care to go 8-8.

Well, there are assumptions here about a future CBA that we simply can't really prepare for: if 24 owners see nothing wrong with punishing the Redskins for spending like they are the only team in the league, then they can impose whatever consequences for large contracts they want to against us.

With that said, I don't believe the agreement that they will eventually come to with the players association in 2012 is going to include a salary cap. Maybe some form of a luxury tax, which wouldn't be an issue for this franchise.

The crux of my argument, and it was poorly stated, was: even though any signing bonus we would pay to the 4th overall pick becomes a sunk cost at the point it is spent, we can't assume that the team would act rationally in the face of facing a potential sunk cost. I think it's a very safe assumption that, if the pick is poor, we will lose games over what we would have had if we had just never used the pick at all. (This, is of course, if we assume the level of the replacement player to be equal to Jason Campbell).

Basically, I should have just stated that I am rejecting the premise it's just money and a pick that we would be spending on the high-volatility selection. If the selection was poor for any reason, either poor player evaluation or poor evaluation of environment conditions, it's not just a pick or money that's sunk (in a rational world, it would be), it's also many football games.

The practical figure of guaranteed money for a quarterback is far beyond what the actual figure is. If the actual figure is $25 million, his salaries for three or four years are also guaranteed. If you look at Russell, it's hard to see any other rational move for the Raiders than to cut ties with him. But the Raiders are going to throw $13 million more at the problem, plus the salary of a new quarterback coach, to not have to eat the $45 million or whatever they've already sunk into one of the worst QB prospects of the decade.

Without getting into all the reasons that the Redskins have a greater chance of succeeding with a QB at No. 4 overall this year than the Raiders had at No. 1 in 2007 (a very poor QB draft to this point), I think the above very clearly is a case of contract risk. Large contracts and irrational decision making have gone together since the beginning of the free agency era. There's no real reason to suggest that the new brain trust is above that influence.

But, of course, if you guess right on a great quarterback, then the contract is, in some ways, a value. But the problem is that you're guessing at all. You really do have to know, to justify the pick, and a No. 1 or No. 2 ranking on the big board constitutes knowledge (as opposed to hope) to me.

[redskins202]

I like Jevon Snead as my 3rd choice of a QB if we don't pick up Bradford or Clausen. Snead arm is a good good canon and plays sorta like a Bret Favre in college( just alot less accurate).

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

An elite QB prospects early career success is of course dependent on the team around him. However, even with "pieces missing" the elite QB prospect makes other around him better within 2-3 years.

I think this is a very well presented, concise, intuitive theory. Is there a method I could use to test this? Is this relevant to draft position, or pre-draft perception of the prospect in any way?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Well, there are assumptions here about a future CBA that we simply can't really prepare for: if 24 owners see nothing wrong with punishing the Redskins for spending like they are the only team in the league, then they can impose whatever consequences for large contracts they want to against us.

With that said, I don't believe the agreement that they will eventually come to with the players association in 2012 is going to include a salary cap. Maybe some form of a luxury tax, which wouldn't be an issue for this franchise.

The crux of my argument, and it was poorly stated, was: even though any signing bonus we would pay to the 4th overall pick becomes a sunk cost at the point it is spent, we can't assume that the team would act rationally in the face of facing a potential sunk cost. I think it's a very safe assumption that, if the pick is poor, we will lose games over what we would have had if we had just never used the pick at all. (This, is of course, if we assume the level of the replacement player to be equal to Jason Campbell).

Basically, I should have just stated that I am rejecting the premise it's just money and a pick that we would be spending on the high-volatility selection. If the selection was poor for any reason, either poor player evaluation or poor evaluation of environment conditions, it's not just a pick or money that's sunk (in a rational world, it would be), it's also many football games.

The practical figure of guaranteed money for a quarterback is far beyond what the actual figure is. If the actual figure is $25 million, his salaries for three or four years are also guaranteed. If you look at Russell, it's hard to see any other rational move for the Raiders than to cut ties with him. But the Raiders are going to throw $13 million more at the problem, plus the salary of a new quarterback coach, to not have to eat the $45 million or whatever they've already sunk into one of the worst QB prospects of the decade.

Without getting into all the reasons that the Redskins have a greater chance of succeeding with a QB at No. 4 overall this year than the Raiders had at No. 1 in 2007 (a very poor QB draft to this point), I think the above very clearly is a case of contract risk. Large contracts and irrational decision making have gone together since the beginning of the free agency era. There's no real reason to suggest that the new brain trust is above that influence.

But, of course, if you guess right on a great quarterback, then the contract is, in some ways, a value. But the problem is that you're guessing at all. You really do have to know, to justify the pick, and a No. 1 or No. 2 ranking on the big board constitutes knowledge (as opposed to hope) to me.

Getting down to it, you're basically talking about risk on the player itself, not the contract or the money. There is no such thing as contract "value" in this uncapped era, and I don't buy that a front office's decision making would be any different for a QB investment vs a LT investment; if the QB is guaranteed the first 3 or 4 years of salary, so is the LT. And it's putting the cart way before the horse to concern ourselves about potential contract decisions over a draft selection we haven't even picked yet. At some point, we reach the point of diminishing returns with discussing this minutae, and as one other person said, paralysis by analysis.

It's really not much more complicated than this: Okung is safer, but a QB has a higher ceiling in terms of the potential impact on future win/loss record. Money isn't an issue, they'll both command a large amount, and neither poses any salary cap impact.

For me, I'll get behind whatever Shanahan decides. If he sees that elite QB prospect and he gets him, I can never fault someone for daring to be great. If he doesn't see said prospect and takes Okung, I'll be comfortable knowing we just filled one of the most important positions on the field for years to come.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I think this is a very well presented, concise, intuitive theory. Is there a method I could use to test this? Is this relevant to draft position, or pre-draft perception of the prospect in any way?

Your tendency to want to quantify the unquantifiable is tiring at times, GTripp.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Getting down to it, you're basically talking about risk on the player itself, not the contract or the money. There is no such thing as contract "value" in this uncapped era, and I don't buy that a front office's decision making would be any different for a QB investment vs a LT investment; if the QB is guaranteed the first 3 or 4 years of salary, so is the LT. And it's putting the cart way before the horse to concern ourselves about potential contract decisions over a draft selection we haven't even picked yet. At some point, we reach the point of diminishing returns with discussing this minutae, and as one other person said, paralysis by analysis.

It's really not much more complicated than this: Okung is safer, but a QB has a higher ceiling in terms of the potential impact on future win/loss record. Money isn't an issue, they'll both command a large amount, and neither poses any salary cap impact.

For me, I'll get behind whatever Shanahan decides. If he sees that elite QB prospect and he gets him, I can never fault someone for daring to be great. If he doesn't see said prospect and takes Okung, I'll be comfortable knowing we just filled one of the most important positions on the field for years to come.

This has nothing to do with I was just saying before (and shouldn't be considered an extension to the argument), but I don't actually believe that either of the quarterback prospects have a metaphorical high ceiling as players. I think there's a scheme evaluation that will occur with Shanahan's system where he will look at all the available players, and ask which ones can execute the bread and butter of his route tree the very best. And if the answer is either Clausen or Bradford, I think he will take them at No. 4.

But a scheme evaluation is not a player evaluation. It's probably a lot more complicated. I don't know, I've never really tried to do one. Player evaluation wise, these aren't high ceiling prospects. I think I have a very good (if not complete) idea of who these two guys are. And to reach towards that franchise quarterback level, I think you need to be willing to scale a playbook away from the things that Clausen and Bradford struggle with. With Bradford, that may be harder because I don't think the things he struggles with are readily apparent (different than saying they do not exist -- a lot different). If you create a QB friendly system for them, I think either of these guys is capable of reaching their top level potential.

Of course, you could do the same thing for Chad Pennington or Jason Campbell or Dan Lefevour. I fully support Mike Shanahan's ability to evaluate all possible options in this draft...but the point comes when you make so many concessions in your offense to try to create a great player out of a top prospect, that you wonder exactly why these are the top prospects in the draft.

Maybe we think about it the wrong way.

[SmootSmack]

Does anyone else get the feeling that if GTripp were the General Manager of the Skins we would always miss the 15 minute deadline to submit our pick?

"No! I'm not ready yet. I still have to run a regression analysis on the running backs based on who wanted to be Han Solo and who wanted to be Luke Skywalker for Halloween in 4th grade and then measure that against the weighted average of mixed tapes made for their girlfriend in 10th grade per Wide Receiver. I need more time!!!!"

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Does anyone else get the feeling that if GTripp were the General Manager of the Skins we would always miss the 15 minute deadline to submit our pick?

"No! I'm not ready yet. I still have to run a regression analysis on the running backs based on who wanted to be Han Solo and who wanted to be Luke Skywalker for Halloween in 4th grade and then measure that against the weighted average of mixed tapes made for their girlfriend in 10th grade per Wide Receiver. I need more time!!!!"

That's pretty much why the Vikings fired me.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

That's pretty much why the Vikings fired me.

Figured just as much