Finding a Franchise QB

[Galian Beast]

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.

Straw man argument.

Never said this.

There are two scenarios in which I would invest in a high 1st round qb.

A) I have no franchise QB
B) I have a franchise QB, but my team has just won a super bowl or two, and that quarterback is getting up in age.

 

[jnday]

Even though link you posted said that part of that is a self fulfilling prophecy. You should read your own links.

22 of 32 starters were first round draft picks because first round draft picks get more time to develop and more opportunities when they fail.

When asked how many actually fail, you ignored it as irrelevant, yet it is entirely relevant as you are missing out on the chance for a franchise player, just because you want to wet your appetite for a qb.

Stash's number tells you where to find your starter. Sure, some fail . That is not the question though . If you want s starter , the odds clearly states to draft on in the first. It diesn't fit your agenda, but those numbers don't lie.

 

[jnday]

Straw man argument.

Never said this.

There are two scenarios in which I would invest in a high 1st round qb.

A) I have no franchise QB
B) I have a franchise QB, but my team has just won a super bowl or two, and that quarterback is getting up in age.

What about addressing the situation they are in now. An aging QB that hasn't been able to win the Super Bowl. Do you have to wait to draft a QB until one of your situations occur. That is crazy.

 

[jnday]

I'd say the biggest benefit of a rookie quarterback is not being one of the NFL's have-nots, scrambling around after mediocre disappointments like Sam Bradford for $18 million a season.

You keep wanting to advocate 'just get one later' while a mountain of evidence says you don't get them later. And everything in today's NFL shows everyone wiling to listen that quarterback is far and away the most valuable and most difficult position to obtain. Kaepernick, Dalton, and Tannehill are getting $100 million contracts! Kirk Cousins will make $19 million for one season! And yet some people think they can just 'get one later'.

We are now in position to do get one for the future and some people want to 'pass' for a position that we can get on day one of free agency.

Where's the starting quarterback to get?

Another excellent post that is full of common sense. This topic should not even be debatable . Unless a poster has an agenda, there is not but one way to see this thing resulting in a top QB.

 

[rpntex]

Straw man argument.

Never said this.

There are two scenarios in which I would invest in a high 1st round qb.

A) I have no franchise QB
B) I have a franchise QB, but my team has just won a super bowl or two, and that quarterback is getting up in age.

I disagree with (B). When your franchise QB is getting a little long in the tooth, it does NOT matter whether your team has won a super bowl at all. In fact,

I'll go as far as to say that makes zero sense. What possible difference does it make whether he's won a super bowl? Whether he has or not, he's just as close to the end of his career.

Dallas found itself in a similar situation once before, but neglected to address the position adequately after Aikman retired. If they had addressed the position in '98 or '99, that player would have had 2-3 years to prepare. Instead, they threw a raw rookie out there when Troy w no longer around.

 

[Galian Beast]

What about addressing the situation they are in now. An aging QB that hasn't been able to win the Super Bowl. Do you have to wait to draft a QB until one of your situations occur. That is crazy.

QBs don't win super bowls, teams do. A Franchise QB gives you the best chance at winning one, but we have a franchise qb right now. The odds of getting one in the first round are pretty low, making matters worse that player would sit on the bench for a year or two not contributing.

 

[Galian Beast]

I disagree with (B). When your franchise QB is getting a little long in the tooth, it does NOT matter whether your team has won a super bowl at all. In fact,

I'll go as far as to say that makes zero sense. What possible difference does it make whether he's won a super bowl? Whether he has or not, he's just as close to the end of his career.

Dallas found itself in a similar situation once before, but neglected to address the position adequately after Aikman retired. If they had addressed the position in '98 or '99, that player would have had 2-3 years to prepare. Instead, they threw a raw rookie out there when Troy w no longer around.

Because we can still use resources to surround him and build around him, and that is the logical thing to do. It gives us our best chance at winning a super bowl.

If we listened to you, we almost certainly would have drafted a bust. Please look at 1st round qbs after aikman was drafted.

 

[jnday]

QBs don't win super bowls, teams do. A Franchise QB gives you the best chance at winning one, but we have a franchise qb right now. The odds of getting one in the first round are pretty low, making matters worse that player would sit on the bench for a year or two not contributing.

This team can not fill in all the holes in the roster to win a Super Bowl before Romo retires . Romo might have two more years in him, but he may have less than that. I know fans don't want to admit it, but Romo's days are quickly coming to an end. What are going to do at the QB position then?

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Do you really think Taylor is their long term answer ?

I dunno.

I don't think they know either.

 

[LittleD]

This team can not fill in all the holesvunc

Adding a 1st round rookie QB to sit on the bench and be ruined by the current QB coach doesn't
fill a hole either.

 

[big dog cowboy]

The thing that irks me with the Cowboys is they've ignored the QB position for so long that now

You know they did that on purpose.....right?

 

[Doomsday101]

We have a chance to draft a quarterback high, that doesn't mean we found a QB... Just drafting a guy high doesn't make him worthy of the spot. And a quick look at history would tell you that.

You are right there are no guarantees be it QB or any other position but there is still a reason why 1 WR will grade out better than his counter parts, there is a reason why a DE will grade out better their counterparts and that is because scouts see greater talent in them but does not guarantee they will be great players. Same can be said about QB but that should not stop a team going after the best prospect. I think Both Wentz and Goff are rated high enough to justify the pick and I think if Dallas has any interest in Lynch then trading out of the 4 spot to pick up the extra pick and getting Lynch later in the 1st would be a great move.

 

[plasticman]

Eleven quarterbacks have won multiple Super Bowls.

Six were drafted #1 overall.

Terry Bradshaw
Jim Plunkett
John Elway
Eli Manning
Peyton Manning
Troy Aikman

One of them would have been drafted #1 overall but had to serve in the military. He was the first Junior to win the Heisman and led his team to a national championship game.

Roger Staubach

One of them was drafted #11 overall

Ben Roethlesberger

One was drafted in the 3rd round.

Joe Montana

One was drafted in the 6th round:

Tom Brady

One was drafted in the 17th round.

Bart Starr

In all, 31 NFL quarterbacks have started on a winning SB team. 20 of them have been 1st round picks.

Last season three of the four quarterbacks that started in the conference championships were drafted #1 overall.

The 4th overall pick has not been a distinguished position for QB's, there have been two and they are polar opposites in productivity, Art Schlichter and Phillip Rivers. Not to say that should be any type of indication, I would certainly take River's.

One SB champion quarterback didn't throw a single pass in his first two years in the league before being designated a starter. That has only heppened twice in NFL history. Ironically, they both had the same Head Coach. The other was Tony Romo.

The current Cowboys organization should realize just how rare it is to find a championship quarterback that wasn't taken high in the first round. Obviously it is no guarantee but it does yield the highest probability of finding a future champion. There has also been some quality at the top of the 2nd round, guys like Brett Favre and Drew Bries

The exceptions like Montana, Brady, and others have been just that. They had intangibles that couldn't be detected by the majority of teams and they were taken by Hall of Fame coaches like Walsh and Bilicek, guys who developed them under highly successful circumstances.

Does this sound like our current Cowboys management?

It would be prudent for the Cowboys to go the typical process and take the guy at the top of his class in the top tier of the first round and hope they did enough evaluation to at least not draw a bust on their best opportunity in 20 years. Either that, or they could go through QB purgatory with their version of Hutchinsons and Hensens and hope they win two lotteries in the same generation........unlikely.

 

[Stash]

Eleven quarterbacks have won multiple Super Bowls.

Six were drafted #1 overall.

Terry Bradshaw
Jim Plunkett
John Elway
Eli Manning
Peyton Manning
Troy Aikman

One of them would have been drafted #1 overall but had to serve in the military. He was the first Junior to win the Heisman and led his team to a national championship game.

Roger Staubach

One of them was drafted #11 overall

Ben Roethlesberger

One was drafted in the 3rd round.

Joe Montana

One was drafted in the 6th round:

Tom Brady

One was drafted in the 17th round.

Bart Starr

In all, 31 NFL quarterbacks have started on a winning SB team. 20 of them have been 1st round picks.

Last season three of the four quarterbacks that started in the conference championships were drafted #1 overall.

The 4th overall pick has not been a distinguished position for QB's, there have been two and they are polar opposites in productivity, Art Schlichter and Phillip Rivers. Not to say that should be any type of indication, I would certainly take River's.

One SB champion quarterback didn't throw a single pass in his first two years in the league before being designated a starter. That has only heppened twice in NFL history. Ironically, they both had the same Head Coach. The other was Tony Romo.

The current Cowboys organization should realize just how rare it is to find a championship quarterback that wasn't taken high in the first round. Obviously it is no guarantee but it does yield the highest probability of finding a future champion. There has also been some quality at the top of the 2nd round, guys like Brett Favre and Drew Bries

The exceptions like Montana, Brady, and others have been just that. They had intangibles that couldn't be detected by the majority of teams and they were taken by Hall of Fame coaches like Walsh and Bilicek, guys who developed them under highly successful circumstances.

Does this sound like our current Cowboys management?

It would be prudent for the Cowboys to go the typical process and take the guy at the top of his class in the top tier of the first round and hope they did enough evaluation to at least not draw a bust on their best opportunity in 20 years. Either that, or they could go through QB purgatory with their version of Hutchinsons and Hensens and hope they win two lotteries in the same generation........unlikely.

An awesome post. It's good to know that some other fans get it.

 

[IrishAnto]

Looks like you checked out after reading the list and didn't read the OP.

The fact that you have quarterbacks with multiple wins goes straight to my point, and my point about Peyton Manning and Drew Brees as Free Agent pick ups also goes straight to my point. Were they first round draft picks? Absolutely, but that is neither here nor there to the teams that signed them in free agency. Signing a QB in free agency doesn't mean you yourself have to draft a QB high to win, it means that the draft isn't the only place to get a franchise QB.

The Bronco's and Saints got lucky.

Both Manning and Brees hit the market because of injury concerns.

Plamer had been around the block a couple of times then found is way onto a good team.

So if you have a good team and you want to take a chance on an injured player go ahead.

I wouldn't bet my mortgage on it working though.

 

[IrishAnto]

Do you see how you gave Brady a pass for non chronic injuries?

Romo's injury to his back is entirely unrelated to his collarbone. Connecting the two is disingenuous.

Is the collarbone a chronic issue? It may become one, but I wouldn't say it is right now. I think they didn't take it as seriously last time, and just let it heal rather than having the surgery and then they obviously rushed him back the second time because we were still in the playoff hunt.

So why goes Romo need his Wednesdays off?

After having two months off why did Romo need to have the Wednesday before the Miami game off?

Why in the last two years Thanksgiving games (after a short week with no day off) did Romo play badly?

 

[Direwolf63]

QBs don't win super bowls, teams do. A Franchise QB gives you the best chance at winning one, but we have a franchise qb right now. The odds of getting one in the first round are pretty low, making matters worse that player would sit on the bench for a year or two not contributing.

Teams that have below average QB play that win Super Bowls require historically good defenses to carry the. Peyton Manning this year. Trent Dilfer. Brad Johnson.

The Cowboys are nowhere near that good. They are fighting and clawing to get to average. And they're not there yet.

 

[Nightman]

An awesome post. It's good to know that some other fans get it.

QB is particularly top heavy in the first round

But even RBs are better when drafted early

Over the last 15 years, 18 of the top 20 RBs were drafted in the first 2 rounds and 13 were drafted in the 1st

 

[KJJ]

You know they did that on purpose.....right?

What they've been doing on purpose is what's led to a very dismal couple of decades. The Cowboys can't seem to decide whether they want to be the Raiders or the Browns.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

There are two scenarios in which I would invest in a high 1st round qb.

A) I have no franchise QB
B) I have a franchise QB, but my team has just won a super bowl or two, and that quarterback is getting up in age.

yea, factoring in whether your team has already won a SB, indicates you're making an emotional decision based on Tony Romo. If you are doing what's best for the franchise long term, not winning a SB with this team should not effect your decision.

Because we can still use resources to surround him and build around him, and that is the logical thing to do. It gives us our best chance at winning a super bowl.

I would conceded that our best chance of winning a SB next year or the year after, is to not draft a QB in round 1, but I think that is extremely short sighted. What would you say our chance is next year if we hit on the #4 pick? 10%? Probably less. Assuming we have a good year and fall just short of winning a SB, do you think our chance goes up? Maybe a little, but not much. But after that, Romo will be 38, so barring us getting a Peyton Manning or Drew Brees like player in free agency, that number dives towards 0%.

If we draft a QB and hit on that pick, then yes, our chance of winning a SB will not be as great the next year or two, but it will be significantly higher the next 3+ years.

If we listened to you, we almost certainly would have drafted a bust. Please look at 1st round qbs after aikman was drafted.

I know this was not directed at me, but I can tell you I have never advocated drafting a QB in the first round or an early round, because like you I believed our best chance of winning was to surround Romo with the talent and we never had a high pick to spend on a QB I wanted. I even thought taking Andy Dalton in round 2, if he were available in 2011, would have been a waste considering Romo's age. But at 36, this just isn't the case.