Finding "your guy" at QB a mistake?

[Iamcanadian]

On 9/19/2017 at 2:32 AM, PapaShogun said:

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

I agree in principle, however, if my HC tell;s me that the QB we just drafted, after he has practiced with him, has real franchise potential, then I call off the search till his on the field performance indicates otherwise.

Unfortunately, the Cleveland owner does not have a clue on how to rebuild a franchise and has sold his fan base a bill of goods, that Kizer will be their savior, even though there is only around a 6% chance he ever becomes a franchise QB.

[Jlowe22]

16 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. 

He's obviously better in a dome, but his first years in San diego hurt his career outdoor stats quite a bit.  And other than 2004, where he was good everywhere, he had a higher outdoor passer rating.  It was still bad, because Brees was bad.  Brees simply wasn't one of those guys that was ready to dominate right out of college.  He's had several seasons with the Saints where his outdoors rating is higher than his dome passer rating.  Including his very first season(2006), where he had a 103 rating outdoors and an 89 rating in a dome.  And every outdoor game he has played since his time as a Saint has been a road game by default.  

 

[jrry32]

Yes, I think that's a poor decision. Pick your guy. Believe in him. Give him weapons and blocking. You don't see what most QBs are fully capable until they're 27 to 29 years old.

[Supersuavesky]

I'm of the school of thought that you build the team before taking a QB in the first place. In this situation you don't necessarily have to have an elite tier player at the QB position to win; a good enough overall team can mask the deficiencies of a young QB. This also means you have a larger margin for error; an average talent can achieve solid progress if the team is stronger.

 

What I mean, in the context of the question, is that it would be a waste of high draft picks to repeatedly draft young QBs in short succession. Each of those picks could be used to improve the overall team as opposed to placing QBs in to a poor situation with minimal surrounding talent. I'm also of the idea that a QB should only play as a rookie if there is no choice or there is a chance for a substantial gain. Drafting a QB last and letting the other players gain playing experience as he sits and learns the playbook first and foremost would be the better solution in my eyes. 

[Iamcanadian]

7 minutes ago, Supersuavesky said:

I'm of the school of thought that you build the team before taking a QB in the first place. In this situation you don't necessarily have to have an elite tier player at the QB position to win; a good enough overall team can mask the deficiencies of a young QB. This also means you have a larger margin for error; an average talent can achieve solid progress if the team is stronger.

 

What I mean, in the context of the question, is that it would be a waste of high draft picks to repeatedly draft young QBs in short succession. Each of those picks could be used to improve the overall team as opposed to placing QBs in to a poor situation with minimal surrounding talent. I'm also of the idea that a QB should only play as a rookie if there is no choice or there is a chance for a substantial gain. Drafting a QB last and letting the other players gain playing experience as he sits and learns the playbook first and foremost would be the better solution in my eyes. 

H...mmm, So, you would have passed on Peyton, Eli, Big Ben. Luck, Mariota, Flacco, Alex Smith, Ryan, Newton, Rivers, Wentz, Cousins, since you would definitely not draft a 2nd QB, Williams, Stafford, Rodgers, Palmer, and Goff, Maybe even a few more. I would not expect your franchise to ever be competitive if you were foolish enough to pass on these guys and wait for latter picks who have generally less than a 6% chance for success.

As far as I can see, only Cleveland follows your strategy and how has that worked out for them.