2016 QB I wanted us to Draft

kskboys said:
McGee was a good pick that didn't work out. 4th round is where you take shots at guys like him who are highly athletic, good arm, but mental aspect unknown.
Click to expand...

Yeah McGee was a good pick in the sense that he was an absolute bum and waste of a draft pick.
 
Biggems said:
I wanted no part of him. I saw him play a handful of times and was thankful I am not a PSU fan......and that is coming from a Horns homer, where our QB play has been beyond putrid since Colt left.
Click to expand...
Yeah, putrid would be an upgrade.
 
McGee was one of the worst QBs we've ever had here. He had no vision. Couldn't read a defense. Everything was check down. No pocket presence. Just a terrible player.
 
kskboys said:
McGee was a good pick that didn't work out. 4th round is where you take shots at guys like him who are highly athletic, good arm, but mental aspect unknown.
Click to expand...
Yep. Always smart to draft a quarterback who gets benched his senior year.
 
kskboys said:
It really depends on the prospect. If an Andrew Luck is there, you give up whatever. If it's some dude who can run but is a subpar passer, RGIII for example, no way.

There are prospects worth giving up the farm for, like Wentz, but due to extreme need, most team evaluate poorly and end up w/ strongarmed mental midgets or fleet of footers who should be playing WR.
Click to expand...

What you point out is that talent evaluation trumps - you have to know who's going to be the stud and whose is going to be the dud. Kind of like Will Rodgers' key to stock investing- buy one that's going to go up, if it ain't going to go up, don't buy it. But easier said than done.

In the SB era, the average draft position of the winning QBs has been the 49th pick (I've excluded multiple winners so they don't skew the data - total count is 32 then) and only 13 were selected in the first 10 picks. Limiting it to just the last 20 years, the average draft position has been pick 54 (again, excluding multiples so Tom Brady doesn't blow the curve so to speak - total count then is 13) and 5 were selected in the first 10 picks. A team definitely has to have a QB, but it is more important to have a team. Giving up a bunch of picks for the 1st or 2nd pick in the draft has a lesser chance of success than keeping the picks and building a team. Sure, there are exceptions, but the odds are better not making the trade-up.

I with you on RGIII. I was blown away that anybody would think he was going to be an NFL QB.
 
JustChip said:
What you point out is that talent evaluation trumps - you have to know who's going to be the stud and whose is going to be the dud. Kind of like Will Rodgers' key to stock investing- buy one that's going to go up, if it ain't going to go up, don't buy it. But easier said than done.

In the SB era, the average draft position of the winning QBs has been the 49th pick (I've excluded multiple winners so they don't skew the data - total count is 32 then) and only 13 were selected in the first 10 picks. Limiting it to just the last 20 years, the average draft position has been pick 54 (again, excluding multiples so Tom Brady doesn't blow the curve so to speak - total count then is 13) and 5 were selected in the first 10 picks. A team definitely has to have a QB, but it is more important to have a team. Giving up a bunch of picks for the 1st or 2nd pick in the draft has a lesser chance of success than keeping the picks and building a team. Sure, there are exceptions, but the odds are better not making the trade-up.

I with you on RGIII. I was blown away that anybody would think he was going to be an NFL QB.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. I've seen too many very talented teams who just couldn't go anywhere because they didn't have a QB. If you want to get into super bowl contention, you must have both.

Me n my buds call them "franchise QB's." They don't necessarily have to be the best in the league, but they need to be consistently decent and mostly free from injury. You just don't see super bowls won w/o them. Yes, I know there's an occasional exception, but mostly it's the franchise QB's winning the super bowls, guys you can build around.

I'm referring only to the QB prospects who are close to can't miss, guys who are going to be at least decent. Luck, PManning, and even guys like Eli and Ryan and Rivers. Those types who are sure to be at least decent.

I thought trading up for Wentz was a mistake, and I still think it was, even though he turned out. Small school spread QB's are very dangerous to draft.
 
KingintheNorth said:
Yep. Always smart to draft a quarterback who gets benched his senior year.
Click to expand...
Did you look into why he was benched? What sort of O he was running and the talent around him?

Let's see, strictly off of memory(I'm not interested enough to research this!!!): McGee got screwed over. They signed him, running a prototypical O, and then switched to some option crapp. He got beat up badly.

Did you take this into account during your analysis?
 
kskboys said:
Me n my buds call them "franchise QB's." They don't necessarily have to be the best in the league, but they need to be consistently decent and mostly free from injury. You just don't see super bowls won w/o them. Yes, I know there's an occasional exception, but mostly it's the franchise QB's winning the super bowls, guys you can build around.
Click to expand...

True, but more franchise QBs come from outside the top 10 picks than within, at least as measured by those winning SBs overall (19 of 32 outside 10) and in the last 20 years (8 of 13). Of course, there's more to the NFL than just winning the SB. There are plenty of successful and franchise QBs besides those winning the SB. But I venture to say the averages or trends hold for those as well.

The issue to me is not whether you draft a QB at 1 or 2, but if you give up a ton of draft capital to move up to do it. Of the SB winning QBs that were drafted 1st or 2nd, none the result of the team giving up a bunch of picks to move up to do it - they were all intrinsic picks by the teams that "earned" those picks. Wentz may have been the first, but nothing is given so you can't say Philly would've absolutely still won had Wentz not gotten injured.

I personally think the juries are still out on Goff and Wentz. Things just came together last year for their teams like it did for Baltimore and Flacco, San Fran and Kap, the Cowboys and Dak in 2016. One of the interesting things to watch this year is whether LA and Philly continue their success, or in the case of LA, build on it.
 
kskboys said:
Did you look into why he was benched? What sort of O he was running and the talent around him?

Let's see, strictly off of memory(I'm not interested enough to research this!!!): McGee got screwed over. They signed him, running a prototypical O, and then switched to some option crapp. He got beat up badly.

Did you take this into account during your analysis?
Click to expand...

Yes. Texas A&M benched him for sophomore Jerrod Johnson. They did this because the new coaching staff thought Johnson was better than McGee, not to "screw" him over. Johnson went onto lose his starting job to Tannehill. Johnson went undrafted and was out if the NFL in a few years.

You know how else I know cCGee wasn't very good? He proved it on the Cowboys. Or maybe the Cowboys screwed him over too?

Bad draft pick by a bad front office.
 
JustChip said:
True, but more franchise QBs come from outside the top 10 picks than within, at least as measured by those winning SBs overall (19 of 32 outside 10) and in the last 20 years (8 of 13). Of course, there's more to the NFL than just winning the SB. There are plenty of successful and franchise QBs besides those winning the SB. But I venture to say the averages or trends hold for those as well.

The issue to me is not whether you draft a QB at 1 or 2, but if you give up a ton of draft capital to move up to do it. Of the SB winning QBs that were drafted 1st or 2nd, none the result of the team giving up a bunch of picks to move up to do it - they were all intrinsic picks by the teams that "earned" those picks. Wentz may have been the first, but nothing is given so you can't say Philly would've absolutely still won had Wentz not gotten injured.

I personally think the juries are still out on Goff and Wentz. Things just came together last year for their teams like it did for Baltimore and Flacco, San Fran and Kap, the Cowboys and Dak in 2016. One of the interesting things to watch this year is whether LA and Philly continue their success, or in the case of LA, build on it.
Click to expand...
Finding examples of non-top 10 QB's still doesn't mean you shouldn't take Luck w/ the first pick in the draft, or that you should ignore the position in the first due to some failures. And the fact remains, winning a super bowl w/o a solid long term QB is extremely hard, and you're mostly not going to get anywhere w/o one.
 
KingintheNorth said:
Yes. Texas A&M benched him for sophomore Jerrod Johnson. They did this because the new coaching staff thought Johnson was better than McGee, not to "screw" him over. Johnson went onto lose his starting job to Tannehill. Johnson went undrafted and was out if the NFL in a few years.

You know how else I know cCGee wasn't very good? He proved it on the Cowboys. Or maybe the Cowboys screwed him over too?

Bad draft pick by a bad front office.
Click to expand...
Nope, you got that one wrong!!!!! They did it because they switched O's on McGee.

Of course he turned out to be not very good, we sorta know that. However, we were discussing him as a prospect, not what we already know. That's a completely different discussion.

Johnson would be better at running the option trash than Tom Brady.
 
kskboys said:
Nope, you got that one wrong!!!!! They did it because they switched O's on McGee.
Click to expand...
So Mike Sherman came to Texas A&M, sees this amazing NFL-level senior QB and decides to run an offense the QB is not capable of running?

Makes a ton of sense.
 
kskboys said:
Finding examples of non-top 10 QB's still doesn't mean you shouldn't take Luck w/ the first pick in the draft, or that you should ignore the position in the first due to some failures. And the fact remains, winning a super bowl w/o a solid long term QB is extremely hard, and you're mostly not going to get anywhere w/o one.
Click to expand...

Absolutely you pick Luck if you're in the position. But Indy was there because they earned it with their record. I'm not advocating to not pick the QB 1st overall, only that it's better to not trade away 2 seasons of premium picks to move up to 1 to take the QB. It hasn't worked out so well for Indy so far, but they still made the right decision. However, just imagine if someone had given up 2 firsts, 2 seconds and maybe another premium pick to move up and Luck's troubles had been the same.
 
JustChip said:
Absolutely you pick Luck if you're in the position. But Indy was there because they earned it with their record. I'm not advocating to not pick the QB 1st overall, only that it's better to not trade away 2 seasons of premium picks to move up to 1 to take the QB. It hasn't worked out so well for Indy so far, but they still made the right decision. However, just imagine if someone had given up 2 firsts, 2 seconds and maybe another premium pick to move up and Luck's troubles had been the same.
Click to expand...
Actually, it has. Indy has not put the team around him. Luck has been great.
 
kskboys said:
Actually, it has. Indy has not put the team around him. Luck has been great.
Click to expand...

But that’s my point - you have to have the team around the franchise QB for him to make a difference. Trading multiple seasons of premium picks makes that harder. Philly was probably in the best position to do it because they had a very strong team already, especially on defense.
 
JustChip said:
But that’s my point - you have to have the team around the franchise QB for him to make a difference. Trading multiple seasons of premium picks makes that harder. Philly was probably in the best position to do it because they had a very strong team already, especially on defense.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. However, don't forget that INDY has made major stupid moves and draft picks since they got him. Don't forget the 1st rounder for a very subpar RB in Trent Richardson. And their drafting has been trash. Not Luck's fault at all, and he's drug them to the playoffs a couple times and even won some there.

I'm generally against trading multiple picks, BTW. It did work out for the Gnats w/ Eli.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 26,137 (members: 31, guests: 26,106)
Robots: 893

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
474,154
Messages
14,516,404
Members
24,208
Latest member
CowboysQC
Back
Top