Cowboys plan to take QB at 4?

[Romotil45]

Who cares? Why does it matter? If you've got an elite QB and a top-5 player backing him up for two years you're admittedly overloaded at the most important position on the field. If you do it because a rare opportunity presented itself and you wanted the insurance, there's nothing wrong with that. Especially if it's only coming at the cost of a RB or a strong-side DE.

Ok looks like your side-stepping the question. So I will ask you what you would say as FO to to top five QB when HE asks you who was the last top five QB that was asked to sit 2-3 years ? Do you get my point. These guys don't want to sit if they do you really don't need them and they would rather go to a team that will put them on the field especially if said team has top 5 OL.

 

[jnday]

Who cares? Why does it matter? If you've got an elite QB and a top-5 player backing him up for two years you're admittedly overloaded at the most important position on the field. If you do it because a rare opportunity presented itself and you wanted the insurance, there's nothing wrong with that. Especially if it's only coming at the cost of a RB or a strong-side DE.

He want be sitting long. More QB prospects are ruined by rushing them too soon than any other reason . The correct way to groom a QB is for him to sit a year or two.

 

[Idgit]

Why is that not the norm then, in your opinion? The Favre to Rodgers handoff is very much the exception and not the rule. Why don't teams draft QBs early to sit behind their 35/36 YO starters for 2, 3, 4 years?

Drafting a developmental guy is different. We're not talking Kolb/Cassell/Oswieller/Foles/Garoppolo here. We're talking about a top 5 pick.

Well, to start with, most good teams don't draft early. So you get what you see with teams like NE where they take a Mallet or a Garaopolo and try to develop them, instead. Favre/Rodgers was an example of where a good player just fell. The fact is, QBs are so valuable in the league that you don't see a lot of teams moving away from them, and since the bad teams have the draft position, it just doesn't come up all that often. More often you see what we had today, which is a bad-ish team moving up to make sure they're in position to get even one.

I'm trying to think...is there an example of a team with a 36-ish year old QB, no matter how good, who's passed on a franchise player when they were in position to draft one? Or it maybe it's the case that all teams who need QBs--bad ones and teams with good old ones--just take them wherever they can get them?

 

[jnday]

You're suggesting they should have moved on from Romo a decade ago?

No, I am saying that this one or two players away from being a contender is BS.

 

[Idgit]

He want be sitting long. More QB prospects are ruined by rushing them too soon than any other reason . The correct way to groom a QB is for him to sit s year or two.

I think so. And the opportunity cost for sitting one a year or so too long just isn't that significant.

 

[Romotil45]

He want be sitting long. More QB prospects are ruined by rushing them too soon than any other reason . The correct way to groom a QB is for him to sit a year or two.

Ok so you admit Romo is gone in 1-2 years then ?

 

[ConceptCoop]

He want be sitting long. More QB prospects are ruined by rushing them too soon than any other reason . The correct way to groom a QB is for him to sit s year or two.

Zero top QB prospects sit for more than a year. It hasn't happened in more than a decade. No offense, but I think if sitting them for a year+ was the best way to groom them, the NFL would have figured that out by now.

 

[Romotil45]

Ok so you admit Romo is gone in 1-2 years then ?

Because that is exactly what Romo will read into it. And Denver is looking sweatttt.

 

[Idgit]

Ok looks like your side-stepping the question. So I will ask you what you would say as FO to to top five QB when HE asks you who was the last top five QB that was asked to sit 2-3 years ? Do you get my point. These guys don't want to sit if they do you really don't need them and they would rather go to a team that will put them on the field especially if said team has top 5 OL.

Well, that much is certainly true. But again, so what? You want to play? Here's Tony Romo. Go beat him out. Tony, you don't like it? Better put in the extra work and hope the back holds up.

I agree, that part of it is challenging because you can't rotate QBs and nobody wants to hold the clip board, but that's why you pay your coaching staff the big bucks. If you get a little Walsh/Aikman action going on, it's not the end of the world. Maybe you flip Tony in 2018 for a higher pick than many would expect to a team that'd be capable of contending otherwise and he does his best Peyton Manning impersonation for a season or two. As long as you're covered at QB, it doesn't matter all that much.

 

[Romotil45]

Zero top QB prospects sit for more than a year. It hasn't happened in more than a decade. No offense, but I think if sitting them for a year+ was the best way to groom them, the NFL would have figured that out by now.

Bingo. Like like like.

 

[Idgit]

Zero top QB prospects sit for more than a year. It hasn't happened in more than a decade. No offense, but I think if sitting them for a year+ was the best way to groom them, the NFL would have figured that out by now.

They don't sit, because they're too valuable to sit. Good teams with QBs are so rarely in position to draft in the top 5. That doesn't mean it's a mistake to take advantage of the opportunity if it presents itself.

 

[Stash]

I don't get why the pro-QB crowd is painting the situation so black-and-white.

You're only a "have" if the players you draft don't bust. And with how much money they're getting paid - is anyone really envious of Detroit, Chicago, Atlanta, or Baltimore right now? Having Joe Flacco is great! Having Joe Flacco and paying him 24+ million is another story.

If investment alone led to solid QB play, the Browns would be set.

Do the homework.

Look into how many of the playoff teams had 1st round quarterbacks.

Check out the well-researched work from FootballOutsiders that shows how much worse the odds of finding a quarterback worth a damn are after the first round.

Take a look at what the Eagles are willing to pay Sam frickin' Bradford just so they have somebody!

How about the shiny trophy that Baltimore got from Joe Flacco before that contract? Think they want to give that back and get their money back?

Owners make more than enough money outside of the salary cap. It's already a can't lose business investment. Why do you think billionaires line up to get into it? Because even if you lose on the field, you win at the bank.

Any quarterback can bust, just like each and every other player. If you want to avoid busts at all costs. Don't draft at all. But the fact is that you can't get one anywhere else. I don't care how well you've managed your cap or how much room you have. Teams that even think they have one never let them go. You can have all the cap money in the world and it's useless. You'll never get one.

The draft is the only place where you can. And if this trade didn't make it clear enough for you, it's time to take the blinders off and reassess what it is you're watching.

 

[Stash]

This is my 2nd biggest fear. My biggest is the 1st round guy getting a massive contract on a 16-24 game sample size in which he showed just enough promise to demand a pay day, but not enough to feel good about it. I'd rather be without a QB than where the Texans are, honestly.

Why? The Texans squeaked into the playoffs and added a quarterback and top running back. Their chances of winning their division and going back to the playoffs again only got better. What's the problem with that?

Did they overpay? Possibly. But again, it only serves to reinforce how precious the quarterback position is.

 

[Stash]

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. How long will 1st round draft guy wait before he gets POed ? How soon will Romo want to be traded ? If I'm Romo and you take a guy in 1st Round this year Denver starts looking really sweet. I would want out ASAP.

What "history" is that?

 

[Romotil45]

Well, that much is certainly true. But again, so what? You want to play? Here's Tony Romo. Go beat him out. Tony, you don't like it? Better put in the extra work and hope the back holds up.

I agree, that part of it is challenging because you can't rotate QBs and nobody wants to hold the clip board, but that's why you pay your coaching staff the big bucks. If you get a little Walsh/Aikman action going on, it's not the end of the world. Maybe you flip Tony in 2018 for a higher pick than many would expect to a team that'd be capable of contending otherwise and he does his best Peyton Manning impersonation for a season or two. As long as you're covered at QB, it doesn't matter all that much.

Ok that's a better scenario then assuming said savior and Romo willing to wait 2-3 years. But you need to make sure said savior is the one or you going to flounder for 4 years if not. However Romo is top five right now.

 

[ConceptCoop]

Well, to start with, most good teams don't draft early. So you get what you see with teams like NE where they take a Mallet or a Garaopolo and try to develop them, instead. Favre/Rodgers was an example of where a good player just fell. The fact is, QBs are so valuable in the league that you don't see a lot of teams moving away from them, and since the bad teams have the draft position, it just doesn't come up all that often. More often you see what we had today, which is a bad-ish team moving up to make sure they're in position to get even one.

I'm trying to think...is there an example of a team with a 36-ish year old QB, no matter how good, who's passed on a franchise player when they were in position to draft one? Or it maybe the case that all teams who need QBs--bad ones and teams with good old ones--just take them where they can get them?

You are right about that - our situation is pretty rare. But lets open it up beyond top 5 (franchise) to the first round in general. If we're supposed to believe Lynch is a realistic option (trade down or not) - I can think of countless examples of teams passing on first round QBs while their starter is 35+.

I think you and I are on the same page in this regard: Franchise guy is a no-brainer. If you think you're getting the next Tony Romo or better, you get him, despite the short-term loss. I'd trade a lot more than the #4 to magically make Tony 25 years old again.

That said, in the franchise guy scenario, I'd trade Tony. If your guy isn't far enough along to play today, he's not a franchise guy. If he is, no riding the fence. Start the next chapter today. Lose a couple extra games while he's learning and cash in on those higher picks. Get what you can for Tony. Avoid the locker room drama. Band-Aid - clean off.

 

[Stash]

They don't sit, because they're too valuable to sit. Good teams with QBs are so rarely in position to draft in the top 5. That doesn't mean it's a mistake to take advantage of the opportunity if it presents itself.

Exactly right. Ours is a unique situation and one that apparently escapes the less informed.

 

[ConceptCoop]

Why? The Texans squeaked into the playoffs and added a quarterback and top running back. Their chances of winning their division and going back to the playoffs again only got better. What's the problem with that?

Did they overpay? Possibly. But again, it only serves to reinforce how precious the quarterback position is.

Overpaying an average to slightly above average QB doesn't help you win football games. Look at Chicago as one example. I'd love to have Jay Cutler in a vacuum. Give him all that money and no thanks.

The Texans simply locked themselves in to the 7/9-10/6 range long-term.

 

[Romotil45]

What "history" is that?

History lesson 101: Top veteran QBs all over the league just watched Manning go to Denver and win SB. No top five QB in over a decade asked to sit over a year. Romo very aware of both. I know cause I just text him lol.

 

[Stash]

Overpaying an average to slightly above average QB doesn't help you win football games. Look at Chicago as one example. I'd love to have Jay Cutler in a vacuum. Give him all that money and no thanks.

The Texans simply locked themselves in to the 7/9-10/6 range long-term.

And not having one at all guarantees you suck.

Do your homework and come back better informed on the subject.