jterrell
Penguinite
- Messages
- 33,874
- Reaction score
- 15,971
Saw a tweet from @danebrugler that he wished more teams would draft a QB every year.
I love Dane's work and agree with 99% of it but I responded to him that it doesn't really work now with so many teams keeping only two QBs.
His response back was the expected... it works for NE and GB.
It is hard to flush out a discussion in 140 chars but that's why we have this forum right?
Why Ron Wolf's model doesn't work today.
At first glance it appears GB/NE have it all down pat. They are the ones to follow in most areas....
But reality is a little different. Their QB drafting has worked largely because they currently have the best two QBs in the league. Drafting QBs thusly works best when they don't play, lol. Ask Tennessee or Tampa how much fun it is to draft a QB every year.
And BTW, GB/NE are pretty darn good but they also are teams that generally lack depth. Giving up a draft pick every year likely plays a role there.
All in all what's important is to get the right guy. Use those resources and secure that player. After that the best bet is paying the 2 to 2.5m per year for a back up someone else burned a high draft pick on and trained up for a couple years. I like Weeden just fine in his role, but I'd be sick if we had burned a 1st round pick for him.
The Boys just traded for Matt Cassel. He's a great study for us because he is one of the best wins with the draft a qb model right? Kind of. There is no doubt the Pat's got more value out of Cassel than a measly 7th round pick. But he spent 3 years on the bench developing behind a Hall of Famer, paid off his draft and roster slots with a tremendous 4th season and was summarily franchise tagged. But not bad for the Pats right? They get pick 34 out of it. Kind of. They actually traded off Vrabel(borderline HOF) AND Cassel for pick 34. They were desperate to trade off Cassel because he was costing them 14.5 million if he stayed as a back up. So they traded off Vrabel AND Cassel for Pat Chung. Chung is a mediocre starter but a long-term one and the Pats will take that result as a win.
So why then does the model not just work that way?
There were only 7 QBs drafted in 2014. The avg number is 12.
With 32 NFL teams you must out-want a lot of other teams to get a QB.
To make that a mandate to draft one every year or two you simply must overpay.
And when you do get one the best way to build their value is to keep them on the roster for a couple years, teach them the system, let them play a few games in a high powered offense and trade them off before defenses adjust to them.
GB: Since drafting Rodgers in 2005 they have used 5 draft picks on a QB. Hundley is currently on the roster as a 3rd string back up as a rookie. The other guys are not on a roster.
NE: They grabbed Cassel in 2005. Since then they have used ONLY 4 picks on a QB. 2 of them made the roster.
I love Dane's work and agree with 99% of it but I responded to him that it doesn't really work now with so many teams keeping only two QBs.
His response back was the expected... it works for NE and GB.
It is hard to flush out a discussion in 140 chars but that's why we have this forum right?
Why Ron Wolf's model doesn't work today.
At first glance it appears GB/NE have it all down pat. They are the ones to follow in most areas....
But reality is a little different. Their QB drafting has worked largely because they currently have the best two QBs in the league. Drafting QBs thusly works best when they don't play, lol. Ask Tennessee or Tampa how much fun it is to draft a QB every year.
And BTW, GB/NE are pretty darn good but they also are teams that generally lack depth. Giving up a draft pick every year likely plays a role there.
All in all what's important is to get the right guy. Use those resources and secure that player. After that the best bet is paying the 2 to 2.5m per year for a back up someone else burned a high draft pick on and trained up for a couple years. I like Weeden just fine in his role, but I'd be sick if we had burned a 1st round pick for him.
The Boys just traded for Matt Cassel. He's a great study for us because he is one of the best wins with the draft a qb model right? Kind of. There is no doubt the Pat's got more value out of Cassel than a measly 7th round pick. But he spent 3 years on the bench developing behind a Hall of Famer, paid off his draft and roster slots with a tremendous 4th season and was summarily franchise tagged. But not bad for the Pats right? They get pick 34 out of it. Kind of. They actually traded off Vrabel(borderline HOF) AND Cassel for pick 34. They were desperate to trade off Cassel because he was costing them 14.5 million if he stayed as a back up. So they traded off Vrabel AND Cassel for Pat Chung. Chung is a mediocre starter but a long-term one and the Pats will take that result as a win.
So why then does the model not just work that way?
There were only 7 QBs drafted in 2014. The avg number is 12.
With 32 NFL teams you must out-want a lot of other teams to get a QB.
To make that a mandate to draft one every year or two you simply must overpay.
And when you do get one the best way to build their value is to keep them on the roster for a couple years, teach them the system, let them play a few games in a high powered offense and trade them off before defenses adjust to them.
GB: Since drafting Rodgers in 2005 they have used 5 draft picks on a QB. Hundley is currently on the roster as a 3rd string back up as a rookie. The other guys are not on a roster.
NE: They grabbed Cassel in 2005. Since then they have used ONLY 4 picks on a QB. 2 of them made the roster.
