Finding a Franchise QB

[Stash]

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

But we know what we can get in free agency or the draft, and what we can't.

 

[rpntex]

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.

Oh, I wasn't saying a first rounder, specifically. I just find it ludicrous that you think Dallas having not won a Super Bowl under Romo should have any bearing on the decision to draft his replacement. He's 36 yeas old. Had he won a couple of Super Bowls, he'd still be 36 years old. The fact that he hasn't won a Super Bowl doesn't make him any less susceptible to injury, nor does it add years to his career.

Dallas hasn't address the issue at all until Aikman retired. Right now, they're in that same situation. Dallas has not addressed the issue at all. They've addressed the issue of a backup, but not with the future in mind. As such, they now find themselves in a position of needing to sign a FA as a backup, AND drafting another to develop for a couple of yeas. Or, I guess we can give Quincy a call when Romo hangs 'em up.

 

[KJJ]

Finding a franchise QB wish there was an exact science to landing one.

 

[Galian Beast]

Oh, I wasn't saying a first rounder, specifically. I just find it ludicrous that you think Dallas having not won a Super Bowl under Romo should have any bearing on the decision to draft his replacement. He's 36 yeas old. Had he won a couple of Super Bowls, he'd still be 36 years old. The fact that he hasn't won a Super Bowl doesn't make him any less susceptible to injury, nor does it add years to his career.

Dallas hasn't address the issue at all until Aikman retired. Right now, they're in that same situation. Dallas has not addressed the issue at all. They've addressed the issue of a backup, but not with the future in mind. As such, they now find themselves in a position of needing to sign a FA as a backup, AND drafting another to develop for a couple of yeas. Or, I guess we can give Quincy a call when Romo hangs 'em up.

You have to give yourself the best chance at winning. Romo represents that. Another random 1st round QB does not.

 

[Galian Beast]

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.



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.



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.

It's not emotional, it''s logical. He is a a top 5 or top 10 qb. He represents the best chance at winning, and in order to best reflect that you need to get him as much help as possible. Drafting a QB brings us no where closer to winning a super bowl. It essentially hits the reset button and hopes for the best...

The higher we draft this player won't change whether or not they can play. Goff could be picked 4th or he could be picked 15th...

 

[jnday]

I dunno.

I don't think they know either.

I would bet that he lasts no longer than two seasons as a starter.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I would bet that he lasts no longer than two seasons as a starter.

He may not, but the guy put together a decent season... 20 TD's with only 3 INT's.

 

[jnday]

But we know what we can get in free agency or the draft, and what we can't.

No, I really don't think the team knows where to pick these players. After Romo, I have a feeling that the new option at getting an elite QB in Dsllascjs to go the UDFA route. It happened before.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

It's not emotional, it''s logical. He is a a top 5 or top 10 qb. He represents the best chance at winning, and in order to best reflect that you need to get him as much help as possible. Drafting a QB brings us no where closer to winning a super bowl. It essentially hits the reset button and hopes for the best...

If it's not emotion, why would a SB victory in a previous season change your opinion on what we should do? The best logical choice, should be the best logical choice no matter what success we had in the past.

The higher we draft this player won't change whether or not they can play. Goff could be picked 4th or he could be picked 15th...

Yes, whether Goff goes first or thirty first, it will not effect how good he is. But the higher the pick, the more options you have, thus you have a better opportunity to get a better player.

Either way I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. I think I've been pretty clear that I think Goff and Wentz are better prospects than the Manziels, Bridgewaters, Carrs, Manuels, Tannehills, Weedens, Lockers and Gabberts of the world. Not as good as a Luck (or RG3 as a prospect...didn't work out, but he was a great prospect none the less) or Newton, but on par with a Bortles, Winston or Mariotta. If you disagree, that's fine, but I don't think you've ever gone into the strengths/weakness of any of the QBs.

 

[KJJ]

Do you really think Taylor is their long term answer ?

If you ask me I wouldn't bank on it. He came out of nowhere year two will say a lot for whether he has a long future.

 

[Galian Beast]

If it's not emotion, why would a SB victory in a previous season change your opinion on what we should do? The best logical choice, should be the best logical choice no matter what success we had in the past.



Yes, whether Goff goes first or thirty first, it will not effect how good he is. But the higher the pick, the more options you have, thus you have a better opportunity to get a better player.

Either way I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. I think I've been pretty clear that I think Goff and Wentz are better prospects than the Manziels, Bridgewaters, Carrs, Manuels, Tannehills, Weedens, Lockers and Gabberts of the world. Not as good as a Luck (or RG3 as a prospect...didn't work out, but he was a great prospect none the less) or Newton, but on par with a Bortles, Winston or Mariotta. If you disagree, that's fine, but I don't think you've ever gone into the strengths/weakness of any of the QBs.

It's extremely difficult to win multiple super bowls and if the team was good enough to win a super bowl, it suggests it has less holes, and can therefore afford to use a pick on a QB without heavily impacting the roster.

I don't have anything against Goff or Wentz, they could both become solid if not more than solid players. I don't think that either is a high enough prospect however to suggest wasting a pick that could be used to help Romo win a super bowl. Leinart was a higher prospect than either of these two. The failure rate is high and the cost of having either sit on the bench for possibly the majority of their rookie contract makes little to no sense.

You eat up salary cap space and waste a pick that could have brought someone in to help.

 

[DFWJC]

The past is the best predictor of the future.

No one thinks that Goff or Wentz is a Luck caliber quarterback. The NFL is littered with overrated QBs who were drafted in the first round, simply because teams value the QB position. Happens consistently.

Blake Bortles
Johnny Manziel
Teddy Bridgewater
EJ Manuel
Robert Griffin
Ryan Tannehill
Brandon Weeden
Jake Locker
Blaine Gabbert
Christian Ponder
Sam Bradford
Tim Tebow
Matthew Stafford
Mark Sanchez
Josh Freeman
JaMarcus Russell
Brady Quinn
Vince Young
Matt Leinart
Jay Cutler
Alex Smith
Jason Campbell
JP Losman
Byron Leftwich
Kyle Boller
Rex Grossman

That's just the list since Romo came into the league...

Good list, though I would not have Stafford, Cutler on it...probably not Bridgewater or Bortles on it yet either.

But the point is fair anyway

 

[Galian Beast]

Good list, though I would not have Stafford, Cutler on it...probably not Bridgewater or Bortles on it yet either.

But the point is fair anyway

Would you take any of those guys with the 4th overall pick knowing what they are today if they were in this draft?

I wouldn't...

 

[Manwiththeplan]

It's extremely difficult to win multiple super bowls and if the team was good enough to win a super bowl, it suggests it has less holes, and can therefore afford to use a pick on a QB without heavily impacting the roster.

And if a team goes 4-12, it suggests it has multiple holes and likely isn't one offseason away from a SB.

Leinart was a higher prospect than either of these two.

No he wasn't. After his junior season everyone thought he's be the #1 pick, but he returned to school. Once scouts actually got an opportunity to dissect his game, his grade dropped...a lot. He went 10th in a draft that was quite frankly not that good, so I don't know why you believe Leinart was a better prospect.

 

[Galian Beast]

And if a team goes 4-12, it suggests it has multiple holes and likely isn't one offseason away from a SB.



No he wasn't. After his junior season everyone thought he's be the #1 pick, but he returned to school. Once scouts actually got an opportunity to dissect his game, his grade dropped...a lot. He went 10th in a draft that was quite frankly not that good, so I don't know why you believe Leinart was a better prospect.

No one was talking about Goff or Wentz until just a few months ago, because QBs always rise.

Team dealt with a rash of injuries, almost identical to the team that went 12-4.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

No one was talking about Goff or Wentz until just a few months ago, because QBs always rise.

Team dealt with a rash of injuries, almost identical to the team that went 12-4.

No at all true, Goff has been mentioned as a high pick all year. You could make the argument that no one was talking about Wentz, but I would say scouts have known about him for a while. Especially considering he barely played this year, and the hype started to grow around here prior to the championship game, which was his first game back. If no one was talking about him (talking about scouts) then an injured FCS QB wouldn't have been on our radar.

 

[Galian Beast]

But we know what we can get in free agency or the draft, and what we can't.

http://cowboyszone.com/threads/quarterback-in-the-first-round-sound-off.305521/#post-5788458

You've been on the wrong end of this before.

 

[Stash]

http://cowboyszone.com/threads/quarterback-in-the-first-round-sound-off.305521/#post-5788458

You've been on the wrong end of this before.

Seriously? You went digging for some old threads to somehow try to look 'right' in this one? That's pretty sad...

 

[Stash]

No at all true, Goff has been mentioned as a high pick all year. You could make the argument that no one was talking about Wentz, but I would say scouts have known about him for a while. Especially considering he barely played this year, and the hype started to grow around here prior to the championship game, which was his first game back. If no one was talking about him (talking about scouts) then an injured FCS QB wouldn't have been on our radar.

More grasping at straws in some vain attempt to be 'right' here. Just be lucky he didn't start rummaging through your old posts too!

 

[jnday]

And if a team goes 4-12, it suggests it has multiple holes and likely isn't one offseason away from a SB.



No he wasn't. After his junior season everyone thought he's be the #1 pick, but he returned to school. Once scouts actually got an opportunity to dissect his game, his grade dropped...a lot. He went 10th in a draft that was quite frankly not that good, so I don't know why you believe Leinart was a better prospect.

Leinart was very highly thought of during the year he was drafted. Hindsight is 20/20. It is easy to see why he failed now, but at that time, many teams would have loved to been in s position to draft him.