Drafting a QB every year and why that doesn't work

[CowboyRoy]

I think the model should be you use a pick every 2-3 years not every year. But the questions is how much are you willing to over spend, burn a 1st or 2nd day pick.

I think the model is quite simple. If you see a guy you think can be a very good QB to a franchise QB, you take him no matter what any time, anywhere. Now certainly not overkill, but you get the point.

 

[Wolfpack]

Wishful thinking used to be the main strategy of the Dallas Front Office. While Weden is a fine backup, he clearly isn't going to be the next franchise guy once Romo is gone. It takes a few years to develop most quarterbacks so the time is certainly now to be looking for Romo's successor.

Romo is actually the last QB that they were able to develop on this team. Everyone else has been flame outs or they bring in the journeyman backup. That's 10 years +

 

[CowboyRoy]

actually, yup.

I just look up Tony Romo.
You remember him right Roy?


From 1994 to 2013 the weighted passing leaders included 3 UDFA amongst the top 11 players.
Romo, Warner and Jeff Garcia.

Certainly they are the exception and not the rule. So what is your point? Teams should just not draft QB's and look to undrafted FA's for their QB needs?

Do you recall the 15 years in between Aikman and Romo when Jones refused to draft the air aparrent to Aikman? The Quincy Carter years when Jones got desperate?

How many teams have an undrafted FA as a franchise QB in the NFL?

 

[Thatkidbob]

Depends on your definition of "work".

I'm joking about the fact that we found a UDFA franchise QB. Come on guys... Use some critical thinking skills.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Wishful thinking used to be the main strategy of the Dallas Front Office. While Weden is a fine backup, he clearly isn't going to be the next franchise guy once Romo is gone. It takes a few years to develop most quarterbacks so the time is certainly now to be looking for Romo's successor.

Romo is actually the last QB that they were able to develop on this team. Everyone else has been flame outs or they bring in the journeyman backup. That's 10 years +

If anything, Romo is a perfect example of how you need to develop a young QB over several years. Which means we need to draft one now or a few years ago.

 

[Longboysfan]

What they do not say is how many Undrafted QB's are on teams now.
Or
Make a team / practice squad each year.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

I'm just going to disagree.

I would rather have 5 darts than just one.

 

[Idgit]

The problem with developing QBs is that, no matter how much you like the player, so much of the actual development can't happen until after they get in the league and after you start giving them valuable snaps. The snaps in a lot of ways are as valuable as the draft picks. The other issue is that about half the teams don't really have adequate starters, and they have GMs looking not to lose jobs, and so they tend to overdraft any player with the measurables to potentially play the position. As jterrell suggests, it's expensive paying that sort of premium every year or every other year. With reps at a premium, too, you barely get a chance to find out what you've got before you have to decide whether or not you're going to keep it.

Like with any position, the best policy is to churn as much as you can at whatever rate lets you fairly analyze the players. For QBs, that churn rate is not very fast, unfortunately. Which means you have to be relatively selective in who you're going to give the reps to. So you do what you can. You bring in extra guys in camp, and you cut quickly the ones that don't show you the physical traits you want at the position or who don't have the mental makeup you're looking for. You carry three QBs, if you can, so have an extra slot to try to develop one and to create competition. And then you get them in the film room, or using the new VR systems, and you create as many situations as possible to give them reps to develop. But it gets expensive quickly if you're wrong.

For that reason, I wish we had spent a premium pick somewhere along the line on a young QB we thought could take over for Romo when the time comes. Or we found a younger guy we liked on the scrap heap. I've got nothing particular against Brandon Weeden, except that he's old. Those Wed snaps he's been getting the last two years are gold, and they'd be better spent going to a younger player we're hoping to develop. That's doubly true if those reps pay off and Weeden starts to look good, for the record. Somebody like Tom Savage, who we were reportedly interested in in 2014, might be a good example. Get a talented young guy who meets your physical and emotional requirements. Give him some competition to push him to make the roster, and then give him the reps he needs and the protection and the weapons he needs to really develop.

 

[Idgit]

I'm just going to disagree.

I would rather have 5 darts than just one.

I would, too, except the five darts don't help as much if you only get to throw two or three. And buying darts keeps you from buying other things you need to win the dart game (the metaphor breaks down here, but you know what I mean). You gotta get 2-3 great darts, and ideally you don't want to pay too much for them because you might well end up only being able to use one of them. It's a tricky proposition.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

I would, too, except the five darts don't help as much if you only get to throw two or three. And buying darts keeps you from buying other things you need to win the dart game (the metaphor breaks down here, but you know what I mean). You gotta get 2-3 great darts, and ideally you don't want to pay too much for them because you might well end up only being able to use one of them. It's a tricky proposition.

Oh I agree.... It's just that one dart is "lightning in a bottle" approach.

Definitely tricky

 

[Gadfly22]

I think drafting a QB has become such a crapshoot in recent years (more so even than the draft in general) that GMs are shying away from stocking up. Look at the 1st-Rounders from 2010 onward:

Bradford and Tebow in 2010
Newton, Locker, Gabbert, Ponder in 2011
Luck (a keeper!), RGIII, Tannehill, Weeden (!) in 2012
Manuel in 2013
Bortles, Manziel, Bridgewater in 2014
Winston and Mariota in 2015

Why draft a QB high, pay a lot of money and end up with a bust. Might as well try to find potential in later rounds on an "as-needed" basis than to throw good money away on expensive busts you hope will "develop" (whatever that means these days, when so many college QBs are not playing NFL systems). That will get a GM fired faster than going for an "as-needed" guy. Who -- if he doesn't work out -- will get the coach fired sooner than the GM.

 

[jrumann59]

I think drafting a QB has become such a crapshoot in recent years (more so even than the draft in general) that GMs are shying away from stocking up. Look at the 1st-Rounders from 2010 onward:

Bradford and Tebow in 2010
Newton, Locker, Gabbert, Ponder in 2011
Luck (a keeper!), RGIII, Tannehill, Weeden (!) in 2012
Manuel in 2013
Bortles, Manziel, Bridgewater in 2014
Winston and Mariota in 2015

Why draft a QB high, pay a lot of money and end up with a bust. Might as well try to find potential in later rounds on an "as-needed" basis than to throw good money away on expensive busts you hope will "develop" (whatever that means these days, when so many college QBs are not playing NFL systems). That will get a GM fired faster than going for an "as-needed" guy. Who -- if he doesn't work out -- will get the coach fired sooner than the GM.

The one good thing is the salaries now given to 1st round QBs, if one busts it does not destroy your salary cap for years to come. Now there is less of a financial gamble on drafting a QB high

 

[jterrell]

Cassel netted them a 1st or 2nd did he not? And like I said, Garrappolo seems a quality young QB.

But again, the point is they are looking. Are you actually bashing the Patriots for trying? LOL

So what is your point exactly? Dont bother trying?

So what if Rogers fell? They still took him when Favre was winning SB's. The Cowboys apparently pass on QB's that are the BPA on their board.

Maybe I need to space the words further apart so they are more clear....

The Pats have drafted 4 QBs since 2005. That isn't really high. That's two more than Dallas. (And Dallas had Matt Moore and other UDFA here during that period as well).

I am saying their efforts didn't actually pan out at QB even though they are 1 of the 2 glorified examples while the other 30 teams get ignored.
I am saying buying a lot of lottery tickets doesn't make you smart.

How many times must I type that Cassel netted pick 34 but when traded WITH Mike Vrabel, a HOF LB. They couldn't get real value for Cassel because he was franchised (12+m cap hit) and they had no choice but to move him. So they developed him for someone else essentially. But they certainly did get value for a pick that seldom makes a team and it was an extreme luxury in the year Brady was out injured even if they did miss the playoffs. If you argue let's grab a QB in the 200 pick range yearly I have zero qualms. But in suggesting it is good form to draft one every 2 or 3 years there are simply too many real-world considerations being ignored like whom is available when and the very low percentage of QBs who can actually play in this league.

Dallas bringing in an UDFA QB or two each year is actually a better use of resources and a smarter long term plan.

 

[jterrell]

It would work better if most of what college produced was compatable with the pro game. Unfortunately it isnt. College football is a video game on turf.

This is a common complaint but reality is the 5 star pro style QBs who go on to big-time pro style college offenses just generally suck at the NFL level. (See everyone who played at Alabama under Saban)
A lot of the better NFL QBs came out of spread(Rodgers at Cal) where he ran 80 times a year, Cam in that Auburn read option, Romo et al.

The irony of course is we judge QBs largely on how they perform in the 4th quarter out of what is essentially a spread set.

I think NFL folks have to do a lot better job identifying guys that fit their system and/or tweaking systems for them.
Romo, Wilson, Rodgers, Brady, Peyton all have systems built for them.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I don't see why it can't work other than not having a good enough coaching/scouting staff to find potential talent and develop it correctly.

That's what Green Bay had with Holmgren. Holmgren may be a lot of things, but a bad developer of QB's wasn't one of them. So they would draft these QB's in the 7th round, develop them well enough and trade them away for bigger draft picks to teams that desperately needed a quality starting QB.

The % of players that are drafted in the 7th round and ever see the NFL field in a regular season game is so low that it's worth the risk if you have the coaching and scouting for it. The rewards are far bigger if you hit on a 7th round QB than if you hit on a 7th round player at any other position. For instance, we drafted Jacques Reeves in the 7th round and he turned into a serviceable corner for all intents and purposes for a few years. Had we found Joe Quarterback in the 7th round and he was thought to be a serviceable QB, we probably could get up to a 2nd rounder for him (like what happened with AJ freaking Feeley).

As much as I like Garrett, the jury is still out if he can find his own QB and develop him into a quality starter. Sure, he really hasn't had much to work with, but he hasn't even come close with the QB's he has had.





YR

 

[noshame]

Which early pick the last couple years you want to give up for which QB that was drafted below that slot?
Want Manziel over Martin? Geno Smith?

We haven't picked high enough to touch any high valued QB.

We need to cough up whatever it takes. 2#1s plus a player or whatever.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Maybe I need to space the words further apart so they are more clear....

The Pats have drafted 4 QBs since 2005. That isn't really high. That's two more than Dallas. (And Dallas had Matt Moore and other UDFA here during that period as well).

I am saying their efforts didn't actually pan out at QB even though they are 1 of the 2 glorified examples while the other 30 teams get ignored.
I am saying buying a lot of lottery tickets doesn't make you smart.

How many times must I type that Cassel netted pick 34 but when traded WITH Mike Vrabel, a HOF LB. They couldn't get real value for Cassel because he was franchised (12+m cap hit) and they had no choice but to move him. So they developed him for someone else essentially. But they certainly did get value for a pick that seldom makes a team and it was an extreme luxury in the year Brady was out injured even if they did miss the playoffs. If you argue let's grab a QB in the 200 pick range yearly I have zero qualms. But in suggesting it is good form to draft one every 2 or 3 years there are simply too many real-world considerations being ignored like whom is available when and the very low percentage of QBs who can actually play in this league.

Dallas bringing in an UDFA QB or two each year is actually a better use of resources and a smarter long term plan.

Its funny how you gloss over the facts.

They netted a high 2nd round pick for Cassell, yet you try to play it off like its a bad thing because that pick didnt pan out for them. Its not a part of the point. And you also conveniently gloss over Garappalo that I have mentioned twice. Good young prospect at QB for them. So in reality, their affinity to take a QB instead of ignore the postion in the draft has netted them a 2nd round pick and a potential air apparent to Brady.

And lets not forget that it was Cassell that lead them to the playoffs when Brady went down.

Gloss it over any way you like.

IF your point is that inviting a few undrafted FA's every year is a more sound strategy than drafting QB's you rank high in the draft, then there is nothing to say.

As much as you would like to imply the FA pool is better than the first 7 rounds of the NFL draft, its laughable at best. And since we dont even had a viable prospect on our roster that could replace Romo and NE does, your point seems even more hollow.

Jones got lucky with Romo, its pretty much that simple. Outside of a lucky break on Romo this team has been void of young QB talent for 20 years with the system you adore. Which again, is laughable.

 

[jterrell]

I don't see why it can't work other than not having a good enough coaching/scouting staff to find potential talent and develop it correctly.

That's what Green Bay had with Holmgren. Holmgren may be a lot of things, but a bad developer of QB's wasn't one of them. So they would draft these QB's in the 7th round, develop them well enough and trade them away for bigger draft picks to teams that desperately needed a quality starting QB.

The % of players that are drafted in the 7th round and ever see the NFL field in a regular season game is so low that it's worth the risk if you have the coaching and scouting for it. The rewards are far bigger if you hit on a 7th round QB than if you hit on a 7th round player at any other position. For instance, we drafted Jacques Reeves in the 7th round and he turned into a serviceable corner for all intents and purposes for a few years. Had we found Joe Quarterback in the 7th round and he was thought to be a serviceable QB, we probably could get up to a 2nd rounder for him (like what happened with AJ freaking Feeley).

As much as I like Garrett, the jury is still out if he can find his own QB and develop him into a quality starter. Sure, he really hasn't had much to work with, but he hasn't even come close with the QB's he has had.





YR

It has worked for GB one time in the last 10 years (if you really count journeyman Flynn a master stroke) and NE one time in the last 10 years(again with journeyman Cassel).
LOL. That is the issue. Twice across all draftees in 10 years. And neither guy ascended to starting for the team that drafted him. They were back ups who got time due to injury.

If you think a QB is worth a round 7 at QB you have to also outdraft that player from everyone else.
The Dallas scouting staff generally doesn't have many QBs listed as draftable. We know QBs get drafted 2-3 rounds early. So you are literally drafting round 10 guys in round 7.

What you are suggesting is ignore the board and overdraft a position with the lowest success rate in the NFL.
Draft guys your scouts rate undraftable and then develop them... hopefully for someone else because no one wants to play the back up.

Holmgren was not developing those back up QBs Wolf drafted. He was working with Brett Favre. He last developed QBs in the 80s. He had an 8 year run in Seattle to finish his career where QB play was a team weakness.

 

[jterrell]

Its funny how you gloss over the facts.

They netted a high 2nd round pick for Cassell, yet you try to play it off like its a bad thing because that pick didnt pan out for them. Its not a part of the point. And you also conveniently gloss over Garappalo that I have mentioned twice. Good young prospect at QB for them. So in reality, their affinity to take a QB instead of ignore the postion in the draft has netted them a 2nd round pick and a potential air apparent to Brady.

And lets not forget that it was Cassell that lead them to the playoffs when Brady went down.

Gloss it over any way you like.

IF your point is that inviting a few undrafted FA's every year is a more sound strategy than drafting QB's you rank high in the draft, then there is nothing to say.

As much as you would like to imply the FA pool is better than the first 7 rounds of the NFL draft, its laughable at best. And since we dont even had a viable prospect on our roster that could replace Romo and NE does, your point seems even more hollow.

Jones got lucky with Romo, its pretty much that simple. Outside of a lucky break on Romo this team has been void of young QB talent for 20 years with the system you adore. Which again, is laughable.

They didn't net a high second (pick 34 as mentioned by me about 10 times in this thread) for Cassel alone. They had to include a Hall of Fame LB in the trade.
The only thing glossed over is your thinking cap.

As to the system, you are basically mentally impaired if you believe what you type.
Dallas overdrafted Quincy Carter and stockpiled young QBs with Henson/Hutch only to see an UDFA beat them all out eventually.

Again, there is zero proof drafting QBs is a good investment. Most teams who draft them to start are awful and they don't see a second contract or starting job.
And that's teams who spend premium picks.
Guys who toss late darts have succeeded insanely rarely.

The only true success was Wolf in a different era with more rounds and less teams again as noted by me in the OP.

You go on ignore for being unable to actually read.

 

[CowboyRoy]

They didn't net a high second (pick 34 as mentioned by me about 10 times in this thread) for Cassel alone. They had to include a Hall of Fame LB in the trade.
The only thing glossed over is your thinking cap.

As to the system, you are basically mentally impaired if you believe what you type.
Dallas overdrafted Quincy Carter and stockpiled young QBs with Henson/Hutch only to see an UDFA beat them all out eventually.

Again, there is zero proof drafting QBs is a good investment. Most teams who draft them to start are awful and they don't see a second contract or starting job.
And that's teams who spend premium picks.
Guys who toss late darts have succeeded insanely rarely.

The only true success was Wolf in a different era with more rounds and less teams again as noted by me in the OP.

You go on ignore for being unable to actually read.

LOL.........wow, you really are serious. You believe drafting QB's is stupid.

OMG please put me on ignore!!!!