Finding "your guy" at QB a mistake?

[patriotsheatyan]

To explain the title: Most fans (and perhaps teams), when without a franchise QB like to take someone to be "their guy" in the first round (sometimes [but rarely] the second round), and then moving on largely ignoring the position to next few seasons until the guy busts or looks like he probably will. 

 

Do you think this mentality is a mistake?

 

Should teams aggressively pursue QBs until they have a third tier (defining first tier as Brady/Manning/Rodgers/Brees and second tier as Ben, Rivers, healthy Romo level) guy, and even then not be content and continue to look for an elite QB? 

 

Would a a team like say, the Titans, be foolish (provided that block buster trade wasn't available) if they drafted Goff or Wentz in 2016 even after a good Mariota rookie season, to increase their odds of getting a good or elite QB, even if it means losing a top tackle prospect? 

 

How about if a team that just took a high QB drafted Cook or Kessler or Webb type mid round prospect, maybe even in the same draft?

 

If a team really liked three QBs, let's say the Bears for example, would you consider them dumb if they took Kizer in the Second and Kaaya in the sixth after already drafting Trubisky and signing Glennon?

 

What do you think about a team potentially keeping five young QB prospects, even if it meant only having eight offensive lineman and eight secondary players, provided they thought all of them were potentially capable?

 

Do teams underinvest in the position?

[Forge]

The only time that I've really advocated for that was a couple of years ago when the Browns had two first rounders, and I thought that they should take two quarterbacks - bridgewater & carr, carr and bortles, bridgewater & bortles, whatever, just try and get some guy who works. Do I hate it if you draft a quarterback in the first and then again in the sixth or seventh or something in the middle rounds, similar to what Washington has done (twice - once with Shuler / Frerotte, once with RG3 / Cousins, where funnily enough, the later picked guy had the better career both times), not really. I don't love taking one in the first, one in the second, signing a guy and all that. You can't push all in so hard on the position that you forget everything else.

Do I think that it would be reasonable to take a quarterback in the middle rounds almost every year? I don't hate that. This is under the assumption that you don't have your guy at this point, though. I think once you have your guy, and you feel comfortable that you can win the super bowl with him, I think you can slow down your investment lol.

[DontTazeMeBro]

I really don't look at it in tiers. I look at it as QBs you can win a Super Bowl with and QBs you can't. If you think you have a QB you can win one with, build a team that can. I don't think you can do that if you're spending a draft pick every year on a QB.

I don't think there's enough practice reps to groom that many QBs. I don't think you'd be good off having your QB coach and OCs time divided between that many QBs. The roster spots 3 extra QBs would take up are important. A lot of teams don't even like carrying a 3rd QB.

[Soko]

Part of it is image, I think.

If the Eagles trade up for Wentz, then take a QB with either their next highest pick or the highest pick in the following draft, it doesn't show faith in Wentz - a guy who most believe can or already has developed into a really solid QB. The fans will question it, ownership probably will too. It creates a potential QB controversy in the locker room. 

Another thing is, a majority of QBs take a while to develop, at least a year or two, some longer. Where would the Raiders be if they drafted a QB instead of Mack? Carr didn't have the best rookie season, but looks to be creme of the crop now. 

You could very well see yourself on a courasel of QBs. If you take a guy and he has a Carr-esque rookie season, do you take another QB top 5? If you do, whom do you play (assuming both perform closely in practice)? You could be taking a QB in the first round every year with guys that might've needed 2 seasons to develop. Eventually it'll be a waste of picks and you might not even ever hit on one. 

That said, I'm all for double dipping. Maybe in the 1st and mid rounds, if you run into two prospects you really like. After that, if it were me, I'd let them develop unless it's a once in a generation type QB sitting right in front of you.

[Jakuvious]

Most of the scenarios you describe, I would say are not good ideas. Like @Yin-Yang, I'm fine with the idea of taking two QBs in a single draft, one high, one low or mid. In particular, I don't think already having a rookie or young QB should prevent you from drafting another player you're fond of, to a certain extent. I've seen the Chiefs benefit over the years from drafting at presumably stacked positions because they thought a player had that kind of value (took Chris Jones when we had Bailey/Poe/Howard/RNR, took Peters when Flowers and Smith were on roster, etc.)

But the kind of situations you're describing are more likely to create a logjam at the position and cause the team to just trip over themselves than to actually improve their chances of finding a QBOTF. You mention keeping 4 or 5 QBs, in your Bears example and your final mentioned scenario. Beyond the deficiency that that inevitably creates at another position, it also causes a simple practice problem. Even in training camp, you don't have a 5 deep roster. You simply don't have enough reps to get all of those QBs a full practice regiment. You can spread them around, certainly, but you're ultimately keeping more QBs to give each of them less practice reps than they would otherwise get. And that can be fine-ish in the offseason, but you do ultimately pick a starter, and you don't want to cut his practice reps to give QB #5 some time. And this isn't just a QB thing, this would apply to any position with a single player on the field at any time.

Additionally, the premise itself is never going to be appealing to a team, coach, or GM. When you take QB1, you're taking that QB under the genuine belief that they will succeed and lead the team to new success. When you take QB2, you're basically betting on QB1 to fail, at that point. Because there's a finite number of outcomes to that situation. And most of them don't lead to QB2 having value. Scenario 1 one be that both QB1 and QB2 turn out to be good prospects with franchise QB ability. But...with QB1 getting the first shot, QB2 probably never gets to show that, barring injury or something. QB2 not getting to show off (again, barring weird circumstances) means you probably won't get nearly enough value back compared to what you put in should you choose to trade QB2, so you lost value there. Scenario 2 would be both QB1 and QB2 fail, in which case you invested extra capital for another bust. If QB1 succeed and QB2 fails, QB2 was a complete waste of value on multiple levels. The only scenario where drafting QB2 really adds substantial value to the team is if QB1 fails, and QB2 succeeds. But even that has problems. Assuming you give QB1 due time, you're delaying QB2's development anyway. You can create a split locker room. Perhaps QB1 even flashes enough to prevent QB2 from getting his chance. So you have a potential Phillip Rivers being held on the bench by a known Andy Dalton. There are simply more scenarios where you're just wasting value. The extra QB pick only adds top 5 pick value if your initial one fails, and you don't want that to be the case.

And there are some real world possibilities to this, too. Plenty of teams have taken a QB high then continued to suck next year. The 1999 Colts, one year after drafting Peyton Manning, could've traded up a spot or two for Akili Smith or Donovan McNabb, or stayed pat and gotten Daunte Culpepper or Cade McNown (none of those would be better options than taking Edge.) The Texans could've followed up David Carr with Byron Leftwich. The 49ers could've taken Jay Cutler after Alex Smith. Jacksonville could've taken Gabbert and then Tannehill. And there are some decent scenarios in here. Cutler may have done better in San Fran than Smith did. Tannehill was undoubtedly better than Gabbert. But the good scenarios just aren't there often enough.

I'm fine with this perspective towards other positions, for the record. If you have a problem on the OL, by all means, spend half a draft on it. If you need corners or pass rushers take them back to back in the first. But most positions, depth doesn't hinder development. 4 young CBs can get on the field at the same time, and if they're all great, they can all show it simultaneously and give you either trade bait or depth. But QB doesn't offer that. You need just one good one. And you can really only have one good showcased, barring injury.

Additionally, even if you take QBs back to back, by the time your first starter fails, you're probably already close to get fired as a head coach anyway.

[TecmoSuperJoe]

All these years I don't think Cleveland would have been worse off if they took a QB in round one every single year. 

[ET80]

8 hours ago, patriotsheatyan said:

Would a a team like say, the Titans, be foolish (provided that block buster trade wasn't available) if they drafted Goff or Wentz in 2016 even after a good Mariota rookie season, to increase their odds of getting a good or elite QB, even if it means losing a top tackle prospect? 

Yeah I think they would look very foolish. They just drafted Marcus Mariota the year before with the #2 pick, so doubling down on Goff/Wentz is redundant. 

I'm for getting a QB and hedging bets with another guy in later rounds (for example, if the Titans picked up Jacoby Brissett, Connor Cook or Dak Prescott inhe mid rounds of 2016 draft vs Goff/Wentz).

[MWil23]

In this hypothetical situation, we're conveniently forgetting one major thing: JOB SECURITY

As a GM and Head Coach, you both know that you have ONE SHOT at keeping your job, which is usually 1-2 years shorter than your contract dictates. Are you really going to throw away that opportunity for the potential good of your team over your own job? Ask Mike Sherman...he did the right thing in drafting Aaron Rodgers and they thanked him by firing him the next year.

In all honesty, I'd be all for teams doing what Washington did a few years ago:

Draft the guy you think is your franchise guy in the first round (HIGH) and then another guy in the 3rd/4th who has major potential (RGIII and Cousins).

[Iamcanadian]

Washington did it with Couzins and NE under BB, seems to aways draft a solid 2nd string QB especially lately as Brady is getting pretty old. But neither team used a 1st rounder trying to find a solid backup.

Once you find a great fanchise QB, you then have to put some pieces around him so he can maximize his strengths, you will need a very solid LT to protect his blindside, you will need other OLmen, you will need WR's and you will need a decent RB to complement him. Wasting another high pick on a QB, considering the team finished low enough to draft a solid QB prospect, usually means they are weak all over and need a huge influx of talent to have their QB get them to the next stage as a SB contender.

Considering that most teams realize their top 3 picks are most likely to produce starters, it is very hard for a weak team to draft another QB with one of them. I think Washington and the NE example were unusual circumstances. Washington's OC loved, loved Couzins and so the team went along with the pick and in NE's case, I already mentioned Brady's age as well as his health. It is only a matter of time before they will be forced to replace him. I think these are exceptions to the general rule that most teams follow.

[SteelKing728]

Take a QB and try to build around him. If he doesn't work out, hope you keep your job and get a new one. With the new guy, at least now he has a team around him.

The Rick Spielman model.

[LaserFocus]

On 9/19/2017 at 12:12 AM, patriotsheatyan said:

To explain the title: Most fans (and perhaps teams), when without a franchise QB like to take someone to be "their guy" in the first round (sometimes [but rarely] the second round), and then moving on largely ignoring the position to next few seasons until the guy busts or looks like he probably will. 

 

Do you think this mentality is a mistake?

 

Should teams aggressively pursue QBs until they have a third tier (defining first tier as Brady/Manning/Rodgers/Brees and second tier as Ben, Rivers, healthy Romo level) guy, and even then not be content and continue to look for an elite QB? 

 

Would a a team like say, the Titans, be foolish (provided that block buster trade wasn't available) if they drafted Goff or Wentz in 2016 even after a good Mariota rookie season, to increase their odds of getting a good or elite QB, even if it means losing a top tackle prospect? 

 

How about if a team that just took a high QB drafted Cook or Kessler or Webb type mid round prospect, maybe even in the same draft?

 

If a team really liked three QBs, let's say the Bears for example, would you consider them dumb if they took Kizer in the Second and Kaaya in the sixth after already drafting Trubisky and signing Glennon?

 

What do you think about a team potentially keeping five young QB prospects, even if it meant only having eight offensive lineman and eight secondary players, provided they thought all of them were potentially capable?

 

Do teams underinvest in the position?

Big Ben was definitely considered a first tier QB coming out of college, virtually identical with Eli Manning as the top rated guy. Manning was slightly rated higher in some circles, partly due to playing in the SEC. And barring some unforeseen off field issue, # 7 will be a first ballot HOF selection along with the four first QBs you listed.

[Jraider91]

Issue with what you are suggesting is that you can't give two young QBs drafted high room to develop. You are essentially asking them to win job in camps/preseason, which we know isn't really an indicator of success in any meaningful capacity. I like the draft a QB early + late philosophy though. Indeed, I'd draft a QB nearly every draft if I am an NFL team - never know when you need a good backup or a talented 3rd string. 

[Ward4HOF]

7 hours ago, LaserFocus said:

Big Ben was definitely considered a first tier QB coming out of college, virtually identical with Eli Manning as the top rated guy. Manning was slightly rated higher in some circles, partly due to playing in the SEC. And barring some unforeseen off field issue, # 7 will be a first ballot HOF selection along with the four first QBs you listed.

Yeah, I'm not sure what the point was. I'll resist plugging in all what I wrote yesterday in the Steeler forum, but this idea that Brees is somehow on a different level than Ben is laughable. Highlights from that post-->Ben has a 106.5 Passer Rating, 10 TDs / 5 INTs in his 8 career Dome games, too. Bottom line, Brees has a 102.5 Passer Rating in a Dome; he has a 90.3 Rating outside one. Then, compare that to all other current 'career' Dome QBs (Ryan, etc.), and it's evident Brees is aided by being in a Dome much more than other QBs. Then compare Brees career Home games (including SD) with Ben's, and they are VERY similar. Plus, compare his first 60 games in the league with Ben's (you know, before he was in a Dome), and Ben was clearly the better QB. I know, big deal, that's only 60 games. Well, 60 games is enough to recognize a pattern, and to see his meteoric rise in play after starting in NO...well, there's a reason he got awesome overnight. But, but, but Brees throws for 10,000 yds a season, and has a career 66.6% Comp%...not so fast...that would be a 68.8% in a dome, and a 64.4% when subjected to the elements like everyone else (if you call being in Carolina, Tampa, and San Diego being in the 'elements', as opposed to Cleveland, Pitt, Baltimore, and Cincinnati).

So, anyway, point is made, I won't belabor. If fans want to lazily blindly follow what they are being told, without digging a little deeper to find the ground truth, then I doubt those will take the word of a football forum's fan's take on the matter, and that's fine, but the fact is, without the aid of a dome, Brees would likely never had found himself part of the Elite discussion. 

[JaguarCrazy2832]

I think it hurts the QB competition because neither guy is getting all the reps they need to succeed

[Iamcanadian]

27 minutes ago, Ward4HOF said:

Yeah, I'm not sure what the point was. I'll resist plugging in all what I wrote yesterday in the Steeler forum, but this idea that Brees is somehow on a different level than Ben is laughable. Highlights from that post-->Ben has a 106.5 Passer Rating, 10 TDs / 5 INTs in his 8 career Dome games, too. Bottom line, Brees has a 102.5 Passer Rating in a Dome; he has a 90.3 Rating outside one. Then, compare that to all other current 'career' Dome QBs (Ryan, etc.), and it's evident Brees is aided by being in a Dome much more than other QBs. Then compare Brees career Home games (including SD) with Ben's, and they are VERY similar. Plus, compare his first 60 games in the league with Ben's (you know, before he was in a Dome), and Ben was clearly the better QB. I know, big deal, that's only 60 games. Well, 60 games is enough to recognize a pattern, and to see his meteoric rise in play after starting in NO...well, there's a reason he got awesome overnight. But, but, but Brees throws for 10,000 yds a season, and has a career 66.6% Comp%...not so fast...that would be a 68.8% in a dome, and a 64.4% when subjected to the elements like everyone else (if you call being in Carolina, Tampa, and San Diego being in the 'elements', as opposed to Cleveland, Pitt, Baltimore, and Cincinnati).

So, anyway, point is made, I won't belabor. If fans want to lazily blindly follow what they are being told, without digging a little deeper to find the ground truth, then I doubt those will take the word of a football forum's fan's take on the matter, and that's fine, but the fact is, without the aid of a dome, Brees would likely never had found himself part of the Elite discussion. 

I agree, Ben is every bit as good as Brees, but that does not take away Brees success. He's right there with Ben, just because he got to play in a dome does not drop him down. If it did, you could logically argue that Brady was lucky to have BB as his HC and should be knocked down for having that luxury, etc. etc. etc. You perform where the games carries you and are a star if you are successful where ever you play.

But if I was ranking QB's Ben would be top 5 currently and so would Brees.