Finding a Franchise QB

[Manwiththeplan]

The risk is the same if you draft a quarterback at 4 than taking them in the 4th round.

The risk is not the same, because the 4th pick in the draft does not have the same value as the 104th or 204th? The definition you provided does not take that into account.

 

[Galian Beast]

The risk is not the same, because the 4th pick in the draft does not have the same value as the 104th or 204th? The definition you provided does not take that into account.

That was a typo, I was responding to whoever said it was the same. Correct, it is not the same.

 

[Verdict]

That was a typo, I was responding to whoever said it was the same. Correct, it is not the same.

I knew you didn't mean that. I assumed it was a question, or a sarcastic statement. LOL.

 

[KJJ]

The risk is the same if you draft a quarterback at 4 than taking them in the 4th round.

The risk isn't remotely close to being the same drafting a QB at #4 overall compared to drafting one in the 4th round. You're risking a top 5 pick and it's the only consolation you receive for an awful season. The 4th overall pick is an extremely important pick to your team and if that QB fails it's a huge setback for your franchise and you're very likely to be picking in the top 5 again taking another QB. You have to hit on that pick but not so with a QB taken in the 4th round because 4th round QBs rarely develop into franchise QBs. Teams miss on QBs in the 4th round all the time but you can't afford to miss on a QB taken with the 4th overall pick.

 

[Beast_from_East]

For this exercise what I'm going to do is list all the QBs who won a super bowl and how their team obtained them.

1. Peyton Manning - Free Agency
2. Tom Brady - 6th round draft pick
3. Russell Wilson - 3rd round draft pick
4. Joe Flacco - 18th overall
5. Eli Manning - 1st overall
6. Aaron Rodgers - 24th overall
7. Drew Brees - Free Agency
8. Ben Roethlisberger - 11th overall
9. Eli Manning - 1st overall
10. Peyton Manning - 1st overall
11. Ben Roethlisberger - 11th overall
12. Tom Brady - 6th round draft pick
13. Tom Brady - 6th round draft pick
14. Brad Johnson - 9th round draft pick
15. Tom Brady - 6th round draft pick

Of the last 15 super bowl winning QBs seven were drafted in the first round by the team that drafted them, but that also complicates things. Only 5 of them are were individual winners and only two of them were top 10 picks.

My point is that there are a lot of ways to get the right quarterback and this idea that it has to be a top 5 or 10 pick doesn't really cut mustard. People are obsessed with the idea, even though most of these QBs drafted are busts.

I think we already have a franchise quarterback who best represents our chances at winning and to best his chances we need to create a team around him that is of high quality, which in term also helps any quarterback you try to develop after him. I would say the common theme for almost all of these teams is that they had great defenses or extremely explosive offenses (or both).

Let's say Romo retires in two years and he doesn't play the 4-5 that Jerry Jones suggests he could play. There will be options available just as there was for the Giants and Cardinals when they each got Kurt Warner, or the Broncos who got Peyton Manning, or the Saints who got Drew Brees, or Arizona who got Carson Palmer.

Don't forget the context of the history we've had at the QB position. We didn't struggle to find a QB for so long just because we waited until Aikman retired. We struggled because we didn't put many resources into finding one, and because the teams we had were garbage and didn't support a QB.

One arugment will be that we won't or shouldn't be so high in the draft again. So you're telling me that you wouldn't support trading up for a QB you really thought was a franchise QB? I'd give up 2 first round draft picks for such a QB. I think drafting a QB I don't really believe in at 4 is much worse than giving up 2 picks for one that I do believe in and that goes for a straight up trade or going after a franchised QB as well. Not to mention there is usually someone in free agency.

Your logic is flawed on how you are defining a franchise QB.......

You are using "winning the SB" as the main criteria for what a franchise QB is, which is totally wrong. Winning the SB is a product of overall team composition and skill level, outside of just QB play. There have been many QBs that are considered "franchise QBs" that have not won a SB (Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, Dan Fouts, Fran Tarkenton, Archie Manning, Warren Moon, and Steve McNair to just to name a couple). Likewise, there have been many QBs to win the SB that are not franchise QBs, the Trent Dilfers of the NFL.

Additionally, there are many current QBs that are considered franchise type QBs that have yet to win a SB. Such as Cam Newton, Carson Palmer, Matt Ryan, Phillup Rivers, Andrew Luck, Andy Dalton, and Mattew Stafford to name a few).

The point is that you have to look at the percentage of QBs that are considered to be "franchise QBs" that are drafted in the first round vs. the percentage of QBs that are drafted outside the first round that are considered to be franchise QBs. You will see that the overall percentage of finding a franchise QB goes way down after the first round.

 

[Galian Beast]

Your logic is flawed on how you are defining a franchise QB.......

You are using "winning the SB" as the main criteria for what a franchise QB is, which is totally wrong. Winning the SB is a product of overall team composition and skill level, outside of just QB play. There have been many QBs that are considered "franchise QBs" that have not won a SB (Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, Dan Fouts, Fran Tarkenton, Archie Manning, Warren Moon, and Steve McNair to just to name a couple). Likewise, there have been many QBs to win the SB that are not franchise QBs, the Trent Dilfers of the NFL.

Additionally, there are many current QBs that are considered franchise type QBs that have yet to win a SB. Such as Cam Newton, Carson Palmer, Matt Ryan, Phillup Rivers, Andrew Luck, Andy Dalton, and Mattew Stafford to name a few).

The point is that you have to look at the percentage of QBs that are considered to be "franchise QBs" that are drafted in the first round vs. the percentage of QBs that are drafted outside the first round that are considered to be franchise QBs. You will see that the overall percentage of finding a franchise QB goes way down after the first round.

I didn't definite these players as franchise QBs.

 

[Beast_from_East]

And for those saying that we can just trade up for a QB when the time comes, remember that the Skins had to give up a fortune to move up and select RG3. Yea, you can say that he was a bust, but at the time virtually every team in the league had a top 3 grade on him.

And if you think that was just the Skins being stupid, keep in mind that the Eagles tried to trade with the Titans last year for the 2nd overall pick and Chip Kelly offered the Titans 3-first round picks and the Titans gave Chippy the middle finger and took Marriotta for themselves.

So its not as easy as saying "just trade up for a good QB when he comes out" because either you have to pay a small fortune to move up or a team will just take that QB for themselves if he looks great. So the point is that you have to take advantage of opportunities as they present themselves and if a really high rated QB is sitting on the board for you, TAKE HIM!

 

[Galian Beast]

And for those saying that we can just trade up for a QB when the time comes, remember that the Skins had to give up a fortune to move up and select RG3. Yea, you can say that he was a bust, but at the time virtually every team in the league had a top 3 grade on him.

And if you think that was just the Skins being stupid, keep in mind that the Eagles tried to trade with the Titans last year for the 2nd overall pick and Chip Kelly offered the Titans 3-first round picks and the Titans gave Chippy the middle finger and took Marriotta for themselves.

So its not as easy as saying "just trade up for a good QB when he comes out" because either you have to pay a small fortune to move up or a team will just take that QB for themselves if he looks great. So the point is that you have to take advantage of opportunities as they present themselves and if a really high rated QB is sitting on the board for you, TAKE HIM!

You just described opportunity cost.

Taking someone with the 4th presents the same opportunity cost of trading up, but in reverse.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

That was a typo, I was responding to whoever said it was the same. Correct, it is not the same.

You quoted me as another poster who did not know the difference...

As usual, you jumped directly to an insult instead of supporting your opinion against mine, which is, the risk (as in the #4 pick) is the same. Doesn't matter which position we pick, the value of the #4 pick is static and based on the strength/weakness of this particular draft. In theory, the #4 pick from year to year is a bit more dynamic, but the 4th pick has a set value, so the risk is the same no matter where we go. And I'd even go as far and saying, the probability of hitting on a QB, is not significantly lower than a CB, DE or even RB. If you disagree on RB, I can provide you a list of failed first round RBs to compare to your list of failed first round RBs. Yes there are fewer total taken, but there are a lot of busts in there as well.

I know you don't agree, but there is literally no scenario where passing on a franchise QB makes sense. If you have 26 year old Andrew Luck, yes it makes sense. If you have 32 year old Aaron Rogers, it still makes sense. But if you have 36 year old Tony Romo, it doesn't make any sense. Goff or Wentz would literally be under contractual control until Romo is 40. We wouldn't have to pick up his 5th year option, until Romo is 39. That is why we don't need to consider having Romo when we make the decision to draft a QB or not. The only thing that matters, is if our scouts say he has franchise potential.

 

[fortdick]

Well one thing to consider is the situation, coaches, scheme, team a QB is drafted into.
Many may have the ability but are put into what turns out to be a bad situation, so they never win championships.
It may not always be they are a bust or dont have the talent etc.

Rodgers was the luckiest one, he got on a good team with good coaches, who were already winning, and he got
to learn and be a bkup for 2-3 years.

Some go to a team with bad OL, and not any good wr or run game.
Some have stupid coaches or are forced into a system that doesnt fit them.

When RG 3 was in his rookie season, he was pretty good, but his coaches let him keep running and not sliding, he kept taking hits.
I said to myself at the time, they should bench him to get him to slide or run out of bounds, and couple weeks later
he hurt the knee.

Just imagine if you were a QB today, and got drafted by cleveland or some other bad team that you didnt want to go to,
and you knew you didnt fit what they run on offense.
There are many teams I would not want to be drafted by, and due to JG , I dont think I would want to play for him.
It would be very hard for any QB we draft to be good in JG's offense.
If we got Rodgers, he would struggle, or ad-lib things to make things work, but would probably retire to get away.

I think if you draft a QB who was good in college, you need to build a offense for them, and have some similarity's to what
they ran in college.
but most coaches have their "system" and force that on the QB they draft or get.

My point is many times the coaches are the problem not the QB, and then if it is a bad team,then what can you expect from the QB?

You wouldn't play for JG? Hubris can get you in trouble.

 

[Galian Beast]

You quoted me as another poster who did not know the difference...

As usual, you jumped directly to an insult instead of supporting your opinion against mine, which is, the risk (as in the #4 pick) is the same. Doesn't matter which position we pick, the value of the #4 pick is static and based on the strength/weakness of this particular draft. In theory, the #4 pick from year to year is a bit more dynamic, but the 4th pick has a set value, so the risk is the same no matter where we go. And I'd even go as far and saying, the probability of hitting on a QB, is not significantly lower than a CB, DE or even RB. If you disagree on RB, I can provide you a list of failed first round RBs to compare to your list of failed first round RBs. Yes there are fewer total taken, but there are a lot of busts in there as well.

I know you don't agree, but there is literally no scenario where passing on a franchise QB makes sense. If you have 26 year old Andrew Luck, yes it makes sense. If you have 32 year old Aaron Rogers, it still makes sense. But if you have 36 year old Tony Romo, it doesn't make any sense. Goff or Wentz would literally be under contractual control until Romo is 40. We wouldn't have to pick up his 5th year option, until Romo is 39. That is why we don't need to consider having Romo when we make the decision to draft a QB or not. The only thing that matters, is if our scouts say he has franchise potential.

The cost related to the 4th overall pick is not simply the pick itself. You're going to have a 5 million a year player sitting on the bench for at least a few years. That means you are going to get less value from that pick. That shifts the risk curve as you now have a more costly pick.

You want to call the QB a franchise QB, but the odds of that are low as I have pointed out. Teams don't waste high picks looking for QBs to sit on their bench when they already have a QB.

 

[Galian Beast]

This is the same crowd of people who wanted us to draft Manziel over Martin... Fortunately enough, we went with the safe pick.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

The cost related to the 4th overall pick is not simply the pick itself. You're going to have a 5 million a year player sitting on the bench for at least a few years. That means you are going to get less value from that pick. That shifts the risk curve as you now have a more costly pick.

Now you are confusing risk, cost and value. Yes, 2-3 years of production from a successful CB, DE and RB is more valuable than what we will get from a QB, assuming Romo does not go down in that time frame. However, I'd also say, the value of getting a franchise QB, even if it means they do not play for 2-3 years, out weights the value of a CB, DE or RB.

But the risk, does not fluctuate based of a QB not playing. It may take longer to find out, but the risk is not greater.

You want to call the QB a franchise QB, but the odds of that are low as I have pointed out. Teams don't waste high picks looking for QBs to sit on their bench when they already have a QB.

I'm not calling either a franchise QB. I think they have potential, but as I have said in numerous other threads, what will ultimately determine their success, are attributes that we as fans are not privy too. Intelligence, competive drive, toughness, ect. Both Goff and Wentz have every other physical attribute, so of course I'm excited about the chance to draft them, but physical attributes aren't everything.

And as I pointed out, odds of getting a CB, DE or RB of comparable value to a franchise QB is really about the same. Everyone just sensationalizes the busts at QB because they are the face of a franchise, but there are tons at CB and DE. There are fewer at RB, but also far fewer taken in the first round.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

This is the same crowd of people who wanted us to draft Manziel over Martin... Fortunately enough, we went with the safe pick.

I for one would just like to say I never advocated drafting Manziel, so please do not lump everyone who wants a QB together. And unlike you, I have never advocated adding him since he was drafted.

 

[Galian Beast]

Now you are confusing risk, cost and value. Yes, 2-3 years of production from a successful CB, DE and RB is more valuable than what we will get from a QB, assuming Romo does not go down in that time frame. However, I'd also say, the value of getting a franchise QB, even if it means they do not play for 2-3 years, out weights the value of a CB, DE or RB.

But the risk, does not fluctuate based of a QB not playing. It may take longer to find out, but the risk is not greater.



I'm not calling either a franchise QB. I think they have potential, but as I have said in numerous other threads, what will ultimately determine their success, are attributes that we as fans are not privy too. Intelligence, competive drive, toughness, ect. Both Goff and Wentz have every other physical attribute, so of course I'm excited about the chance to draft them, but physical attributes aren't everything.

And as I pointed out, odds of getting a CB, DE or RB of comparable value to a franchise QB is really about the same. Everyone just sensationalizes the busts at QB because they are the face of a franchise, but there are tons at CB and DE. There are fewer at RB, but also far fewer taken in the first round.

Please learn what a cost benefit analysis in relation to risk.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

Please learn what a cost benefit analysis in relation to risk.

You can try to apply what ever economic term to the NFL draft that you want, but the risk of a pick does not increase based on immediate payout. In these terms, they are just separate. If it were remotely possible that Romo would play at an elite level during their entire rookie contract, which is 5 years for a first round pick, then, you could argue that the risk would be greater, since we no longer control them. But, this is not at all realistic, which is why I used a pretty generous window of 2-3 years, when in all actuality, we do not know for sure if at the age of 36 he will be as good as he was at 34.

And when we bring the value of a pick in the discussion, I still say a franchise QB trumps all. More than a DE, more than a CB (not even debatable) and more than a RB (even less valuable than a CB).

 

[KJJ]

The thing that irks me with the Cowboys is they've ignored the QB position for so long that now with Romo's age and health concerns it has the team having to consider a QB at #4 overall. The team has wasted too much time the past few summers bringing in undrafted developmental long shots that have very little chance of developing into a solid backup much less Romo's replacement. Don't get me wrong bringing in one of these long shots is worth the chance that's how the Cowboys found Romo but they also brought in Drew Henson who was once a highly touted college QB who they gave up a 3rd round pick to add to the competition. In 1974 the Cowboys invested a 3rd round pick on Danny White and 4 years later they invested a #2 on Glenn Carano to prepare for life after Staubach.

Danny White was ready to step in at the time of Staubach's unexpected retirement in 79 giving the team a chance to continue competing for championships through the early 80's. The team got caught unprepared when Aikman had to be released and it led to several very lean years trying to find a QB. The Cowboys could have taken a flier on a QB in the second or 3rd rounds the past few years and ended up with an Andy Dalton or Russell Wilson but they were too busy wasting #2's on TEs who had little chance to develop playing behind Jason Witten.

 

[jnday]

I'm finding that more and more people do not understand the difference between probability and risk. I guess it is the same problem when people don't know the difference between correlation and causality, but I digress.

Yes. The risk is inherently different. There are a lot more factors at stake when draft almost any position other than quarterback, which is primarily why failed QBs get coaches fired.

You spend a significant amount of time building a team around a QB, whereas you do not do the same around a cornerback.

The scenario is even worse when you have said qb sitting on the bench for a time.

So, we should never draft a QB in the first couple of rounds due to the investment being too much. That sounds like a plan. Maybe, just maybe I will see one more decent QB in Dallas before I die of old age.

 

[jnday]

The risk is not the same, because the 4th pick in the draft does not have the same value as the 104th or 204th? The definition you provided does not take that into account.

You forgot to mention the sure differences in a first round prospect and the third round prospect when it comes to talent. There is a big difference in talent , but that is being overlooked.

 

[jnday]

But are they operating out of legitimate or irrational fear?

Look at what Buffalo was able to do with Tyrod Taylor, who was a 6th round pick and a cheap contract.

Do you really think Taylor is their long term answer ?