Bears GM: Late-round quarterbacks aren't worth it

[RS12]

Bears general manager Phil Emery cautions against the idea of the Bears drafting a developmental quarterback in the mid-to-late rounds, Jeff Dickerson of ESPN Chicago reports. The Bears used sixth and fifth round picks on quarterbacks Dan LeFevour [2010] and Nate Enderle [2011] and neither player panned out.

"I just did a little study. It's very interesting," Emery said. "That developmental theory doesn't hold a whole lot of water. There's entire classes of quarterbacks, since '06, I went back and looked at from Jay's on -- when people say developmental quarterbacks, OK, so who has gotten developed? There isn't a single quarterback after the third round since 2006 that has been a long-term starter. So you're either developing thirds, and most of them have been wiped out of the league. So to get a quality quarterback, you've got to draft them high. That 2012 class is a blip on the radar that's unusual, highly unusual.

"Most of the starters in this league come from the first and second round. So that's where you need to take a quarterback. So when you talk about quarterback every year, they have to be somebody that you truly believe will beat out the second and third quarterback that you perceive on your roster. And if not, history shows that you shouldn't make that pick."

http://www.theredzone.org/BlogDescr...und-quarterbacks-aren-t-worth-it/Default.aspx

 

[RS12]

Stephen McGee anyone?

 

[xwalker]

I've seen other research with the same conclusion.

IMO, it really only worth draft a mid to late round QB if he can be the primary backup as a rookie. This saves money spent on a veteran backup and saves a valuable roster spot by not having to carry 3 QBs.

The Cowboys, IMO, should just try to win with Romo and whoever as the backup. If Romo can't play, then they might as well tank the season, get a top 10 pick and draft a QB there.

 

[KB1122]

As I like to say .... Grooming is a myth.

 

[JPostSam]

meh. plenty of first and second round quarterbacks are busts, too. and, in general, first and second rounders of *all* positions pan out more than lower draft picks. that's the way it's supposed to be. no real insight there.

 

[KB1122]

I've seen other research with the same conclusion.

IMO, it really only worth draft a mid to late round QB if he can be the primary backup as a rookie. This saves money spent on a veteran backup and saves a valuable roster spot by not having to carry 3 QBs.

The Cowboys, IMO, should just try to win with Romo and whoever as the backup. If Romo can't play, then they might as well tank the season, get a top 10 pick and draft a QB there.

The only quarterback I would take in a mid-to-late round is a guy who had some kind of screwy college career. Kurt Warner didn't start until he was a fifth-year senior. Brad Johnson was mostly a backup in college. Tom Brady always seemed to be splitting time as a starter at MIchigan, etc.

The idea that you can draft a guy who started multiple years at a major college program but isn't a high pick and coach him up is bad thinking IMO. I'm looking at you, Aaron Murray.

 

[Fla Cowpoke]

Not trying to be dismissive but any player taken in the last round or two probably has a minimal chance at sticking. At that point I think you are looking at guys that have one decent thing going for them and hoping you can improve the rest.

 

[Hardline]

I have had this view for many years. If you want a QB you get him in round 1 or not at all.

 

[tm1119]

If things go wrong with Romo this year the team will be bad with at least a top 15 pick. That's when you look for a QB. Wasting a 3/4 round pick this year on a backup QB could be a D or O lineman that could be a full time starter in 2015.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I've seen other research with the same conclusion.

IMO, it really only worth draft a mid to late round QB if he can be the primary backup as a rookie. This saves money spent on a veteran backup and saves a valuable roster spot by not having to carry 3 QBs.

The Cowboys, IMO, should just try to win with Romo and whoever as the backup. If Romo can't play, then they might as well tank the season, get a top 10 pick and draft a QB there.

I agree with this take.

 

[DFWJC]

I sort of (even mostly) agree with this....especially when he expanded it to after the 3rd.

Still, there is the obvious true statement that where you draft a player does not change who that player is. He does magically become better just because some may reached for him early.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

meh. plenty of first and second round quarterbacks are busts, too. and, in general, first and second rounders of *all* positions pan out more than lower draft picks. that's the way it's supposed to be. no real insight there.

That's a valid point.

I think this sort of article is aimed more at the folks that prattle off the often repeated cliché "You draft a QB every year no matter what".

 

[Alexander]

As I like to say .... Grooming is a myth.

Taking one QB and trying to "groom" them over time is the real myth.

If it is the hardest position to evaluate, then you kill it with volume.

You take one every season until you hit on one.

 

[Alexander]

That's a valid point.

I think this sort of article is aimed more at the folks that prattle off the often repeated cliché "You draft a QB every year no matter what".

That is based on volume, not the concept that you can make something out of nothing just by working with them.

What we tried to do with Stephen McGee was grooming.

We wasted time when we probably should have moved on after a couple of years and got another one.

 

[xwalker]

meh. plenty of first and second round quarterbacks are busts, too. and, in general, first and second rounders of *all* positions pan out more than lower draft picks. that's the way it's supposed to be. no real insight there.

I don't remember the exact numbers, but in previous research that I saw, at 4th QB had something like a 2% chance of ever becoming a quality starter compared to something like 20% for a non-QB forth round pick.

If you just "take one every year" then your probably of find a starter is much lower than if you don't draft QBs. Basically if you draft 50 4th round QBs, the probability is that one will be a quality starter. With those 50 picks you would have gotten 10 starters at other positions.

Like I said, I don't remember the exact numbers, but I know it was about a 10 to 1 ratio of success for a non-QB compared to a QB in the 4th round.

The ratio was better in earlier rounds and worse in later rounds.

 

[Beast_from_East]

This is why Romo is such an anomaly.....................for an undrafted player to end up being a franchise QB is almost unheard of in the NFL.

Like others have said, you ride Romo until you have to carry him off the field on a stretcher. Then you tank and get a top 10 pick to select your next franchise QB. Yea, you might bust on the pick by getting the next Ryan Leaf, but you dam sure have a better chance than signing former baseball players or middle and late round scrubs.

 

[AbeBeta]

I have had this view for many years. If you want a QB you get him in round 1 or not at all.

I have had this view for many years. If you want a QB you get him in round 1 or not at all.

Warren Moon, Jeff Garcia, Tony Romo, and Kurt Warner all benefitted from time to develop.

More likely the issue is QB classes have been pretty weak lately

 

[Plankton]

I agree with the overall premise, but I'm still a bit stubborn. Brett Smith from Wyoming would be an interesting guy to look at.

If only there was a different QB coach than Wade Wilson.

 

[JoeyBoy718]

This is why I'm high on Bridgewater. He's a top 5 pick in most drafts. This is just a weird year with the Manziel (Tebow) love and the bad pro day. We'll never have a chance at a guy of Bridgewater's level until after Romo retires and we finish with a 3-13 record.

 

[Hardline]

Warren Moon, Jeff Garcia, Tony Romo, and Kurt Warner all benefitted from time to develop.

More likely the issue is QB classes have been pretty weak lately

The stats back up my claim. Of course there are exceptions to everything. You will turn coal into a diamond sometimes. Just very very unlikely.