Stafford in WFT Plans? He’s Available

[CRedskinsRule]

Yet another crazy stat courtesy of Albert Breer:

22 quarterbacks were drafted in the first round between 2009 and 2016. None of the them remain on the team that drafted them. Zee. Row.

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Yet another crazy stat courtesy of Albert Breer:

That is C R A Z Y ! ! !

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Yet another crazy stat courtesy of Albert Breer:

Which is why you take the proven stud QB over a rookie all day every day

[SkinzWin]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

Which is why you take the proven stud QB over a rookie all day every day

Amen.

[SFREDSKIN]

The 49ers had offered 2 2nds and 2 3rds for Stafford.

https://heavy.com/sports/san-francis...N7CgGEin0n2RgI

[Scalper]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Yet another crazy stat courtesy of Albert Breer:

Misleading stat.
Lets look at the best starting QBs in the NFL. This is not necessarily in ranked order:

On team that drafted them:
Mahomes
Rodgers
Mayfield
Jackson
Allen
Roethlisraper
Wilson
Mayfield
Carr
Watson
Herbert
Murray
Ryan

Another team:
Tannehill
Fitzpatrick
Brees
Brady
Stafford
Goff
Bridgewater
Cousins
Rivers

This list could be much longer, but you get the point.
Most all of the great QBs are on team that drafted them.
Only exception is Brady, who won all his SBs on team that drafted him.
Brees was 27 when signed by Saints, and they did not trade picks for him.
Neither did TB trade picks for Brady.
Virtually every elite QB in the NFL is on the team that drafted them, and won their SBs on the team that drafted them, and the only exception is Brees who no one traded 3 1st round picks for at age 3x. The reason is simple: teams don't let true franchise QB get away. In general, the golden rule is that if you can trade for a QB, he probably isn't a franchise QB.

Now let's look at every QB who won 2+ SBs in the salary cap era, assuming that is our goal. Brady, Eli Manning, Roethlisraper, Young/Aikman (right on edge of salary cap era), Elway, P. Manning is the only QB to do it 2 different teams, and Denver won it in spite of him. Mahomes will probably be on that list at some point.

1 SB winners include Rodgers, Wilson, Flacco, Brees, etc., all on team drafted them. There are a few guys who won on team not drafted by, Dilfer, Johnson, Foles played for other teams before coming back to Eagles. 2-3 exceptions in entire salary cap era, and most all the great dynasties won with single QB they drafted and developed.

If the goal here is to win multiple SBs, the path is clear. You draft a QB. You develop him. Mahomes sat a year. Rodgers sat several. Brady sat several. Getting a true franchise QB isn't usually an instant gratification proposition. Like anything truly worth attaining, it takes commitment in draft and in development. Teams don't let true franchise QBs go voluntarily, with Brees being the only notable exception on the list, and obviously Brady who wanted out of NE. If a QB is available for trade or in FA, he is usually by definition not a franchise QB, as no team voluntarily surrenders one. EVER. Brady and Brees are only two exceptions in quarter century plus under salary cap, with caveats mentioned.

So all the people saying trying to draft a QB is folly, you are wrong, statistically speaking. Salary cap began in 1994, EVERY team won 2+ SBs drafted and developed the QB they won with. EVERY team that won SB since 1994 did so with QB drafted and developed, with exceptions of Warner, Dilfer, Johnson. Most people would say Dilfer and Johnson SBs won in spite of them or without dominant QB play, and that was BEFORE rule changes favoring passing absurdly and limiting practice so much that continuity in a system becomes HUGE advantage. That leaves one serious outlier, Warner. 23/26 SBs won by teams that drafted and developed, 88.5%, and 100% of teams who won 2+ SBs.

But yeah, let's trade 27 1st round picks for Watson, or Stafford, or whoever. Anyone wonder why teams who made the big name trades for retread QBs aren't on this list, for 2+ SBs especially? Even assuming the QBs produced? Because they had a short windows with the older QBs but not the resources to assemble a competitive team around them because they traded all those picks away, so couldn't get over the hump. Dynasties in the NFL are built through the draft, period.

So the question is, which QB do we draft without trading up?

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by Scalper

Misleading stat.
Lets look at the best starting QBs in the NFL. This is not necessarily in ranked order:

On team that drafted them:
Mahomes
Rodgers
Mayfield
Jackson
Allen
Roethlisraper
Wilson
Mayfield
Carr
Watson
Herbert
Murray
Ryan

Another team:
Tannehill
Fitzpatrick
Brees
Brady
Stafford
Goff
Bridgewater
Cousins
Rivers

This list could be much longer, but you get the point.
Most all of the great QBs are on team that drafted them.
Only exception is Brady, who won all his SBs on team that drafted him.
Brees was 27 when signed by Saints, and they did not trade picks for him.
Neither did TB trade picks for Brady.
Virtually every elite QB in the NFL is on the team that drafted them, and won their SBs on the team that drafted them, and the only exception is Brees who no one traded 3 1st round picks for at age 3x. The reason is simple: teams don't let true franchise QB get away. In general, the golden rule is that if you can trade for a QB, he probably isn't a franchise QB.

Now let's look at every QB who won 2+ SBs in the salary cap era, assuming that is our goal. Brady, Eli Manning, Roethlisraper, Young/Aikman (right on edge of salary cap era), Elway, P. Manning is the only QB to do it 2 different teams, and Denver won it in spite of him. Mahomes will probably be on that list at some point.

1 SB winners include Rodgers, Wilson, Flacco, Brees, etc., all on team drafted them. There are a few guys who won on team not drafted by, Dilfer, Johnson, Foles played for other teams before coming back to Eagles. 2-3 exceptions in entire salary cap era, and most all the great dynasties won with single QB they drafted and developed.

If the goal here is to win multiple SBs, the path is clear. You draft a QB. You develop him. Mahomes sat a year. Rodgers sat several. Brady sat several. Getting a true franchise QB isn't usually an instant gratification proposition. Like anything truly worth attaining, it takes commitment in draft and in development. Teams don't let true franchise QBs go voluntarily, with Brees being the only notable exception on the list, and obviously Brady who wanted out of NE. If a QB is available for trade or in FA, he is usually by definition not a franchise QB, as no team voluntarily surrenders one. EVER. Brady and Brees are only two exceptions in quarter century plus under salary cap, with caveats mentioned.

So all the people saying trying to draft a QB is folly, you are wrong, statistically speaking. Salary cap began in 1994, EVERY team won 2+ SBs drafted and developed the QB they won with. EVERY team that won SB since 1994 did so with QB drafted and developed, with exceptions of Warner, Dilfer, Johnson. Most people would say Dilfer and Johnson SBs won in spite of them or without dominant QB play, and that was BEFORE rule changes favoring passing absurdly and limiting practice so much that continuity in a system becomes HUGE advantage. That leaves one serious outlier, Warner. 23/26 SBs won by teams that drafted and developed, 88.5%, and 100% of teams who won 2+ SBs.

But yeah, let's trade 27 1st round picks for Watson, or Stafford, or whoever. Anyone wonder why teams who made the big name trades for retread QBs aren't on this list, for 2+ SBs especially? Even assuming the QBs produced? Because they had a short windows with the older QBs but not the resources to assemble a competitive team around them because they traded all those picks away, so couldn't get over the hump. Dynasties in the NFL are built through the draft, period.

So the question is, which QB do we draft without trading up?

Wait! Are you saying that we should draft our quarterback of the future, rather than trade for him? Are you sure?

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

Wait! Are you saying that we should draft our quarterback of the future, rather than trade for him? Are you sure?

I tend to lean on this logic too. Drafting a qb of the future is way more cost effective than trading for one. Not to mention how much your roster will be set back if the qb you trade for doesn't pan out.

Unless Watson could be had for a fair price I'm not mortgaging the future to win now.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by mooby

I tend to lean on this logic too. Drafting a qb of the future is way more cost effective than trading for one. Not to mention how much your roster will be set back if the qb you trade for doesn't pan out.

Unless Watson could be had for a fair price I'm not mortgaging the future to win now.

It’s absolutely more cost effective. But it’s also absolutely a crapshoot.

The premium you pay for a guy like Stafford, multiple picks and a high dollar contract, you’re paying that premium for the certainty that you’ve got a QB you can build around, someone who allows you to move on and focus on building out the rest of the roster.

But like anything else, you have to decide whether the premium price was worth it. It was worth trading for, but not at this price.

We should explore other options. It beats rolling the dice on a rookie.

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by mooby

I tend to lean on this logic too. Drafting a qb of the future is way more cost effective than trading for one. Not to mention how much your roster will be set back if the qb you trade for doesn't pan out.

Unless Watson could be had for a fair price I'm not mortgaging the future to win now.

That was a joke. I know where he stands, it's painfully obvious if you take the time to read his books.

I'd rather sign a FA and draft our future QB too. That is my preferred method of solving the QB situation. I wouldn't hate it if they signed Dak, then you can wait on that future QB thing.

I also wouldn't hate it if they traded for Carr if it was a reasonable (not Stafford-like) offer.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Yet another crazy stat courtesy of Albert Breer:

what a dumb stat.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

what a dumb stat.

How is it dumb. When 0% of a position drafted in the 1st round is on their original team 5 yrs later (2016)that should be a cautionary tale. When it happens consistently, it should be a strong warning that drafting a qb in the 1st round, even repeated attempts at it, is not a definitive way to get the right guy.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

How is it dumb. When 0% of a position drafted in the 1st round is on their original team 5 yrs later (2016)that should be a cautionary tale. When it happens consistently, it should be a strong warning that drafting a qb in the 1st round, even repeated attempts at it, is not a definitive way to get the right guy.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

50% of 1st rouders bust anyway. so does that mean you do not try and draft one? i sure would like to have watson, murray, allen, rodgers, carr, herbert, mahomes, burrow. in 10 or 11 years chances are some of those young guys will have moved on or won't be playing. that is the nature of the beast.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

50% of 1st rouders bust anyway. so does that mean you do not try and draft one? i sure would like to have watson, murray, allen, rodgers, carr, herbert, mahomes, burrow. in 10 or 11 years chances are some of those young guys will have moved on or won't be playing. that is the nature of the beast.

Right, so the point is valid. If your strategy is solely to jump up to grab the kid that looks like a sure thing, it is a dumb strategy. If you have an NFL proven starter you can get for a first round pick or even 2, that is a better deal because as you said 50% of the 1st round drafted qbs are gonna bust.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Right, so the point is valid. If your strategy is solely to jump up to grab the kid that looks like a sure thing, it is a dumb strategy. If you have an NFL provenstarter you can get for a first round pick or even 2, that is a better deal becau se as you said 50% of the 1st round drafted qbs are gonna bust.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

why would it be dumb? i would rather draft someone and have them on a rookie deal. rams made it w/ goff on a rookie deal to the SB. same w/ mahomes, seattle made it twice w/wilson. sure there are examples the other way. but breer's example just makes no sense to me. 1st round qb's change teams after a period of time. even greatest QB's change teams.

in this instance how much better is stafford than goff? can the rams continue to stay a contender w/out 1st round picks?