Finding Romo's Replacement

[darthseinfeld]

Im not saying they are gonna draft one next year, but judging by this build up to the draft, you can expect them to show alot of interest in first round types like Hackenberg, Cook, Jones and Keil

 

[Galian Beast]

http://www.windycitygridiron.com/2013/10/24/5022068/the-myth-of-grooming-a-qb-from-the-draft

Great write up on the myth of developing a QB

 

[Galian Beast]

So why have so many of the teams with older franchise quarterbacks (Denver, New England, New Orleans) drafted quarterbacks in the 2-3rd round in recent years? Even Green Bay took a QB this year and Rogers isn't that old. I think that grooming a QB is still very relevant.

Most of these players end up getting traded to desperate teams, only to find that they still aren't that great. Cassell and Mallett are perfect examples.

 

[darthseinfeld]

Straw man argument.

I would either

a) Draft a QB a year or two before Romo retires
b) Sign a free agent QB, even if they are franchised
c) Trade up in the draft for a QB when the time is right

It mostly depends on Romo's ability to continue performing and it depends on who is in the draft and in free agency at the time.

You sign a FA thats been franchised your giving up two first rounders and probably over 50-60 million guarenteed if not more for a player there team isnt going to match

Do you want to give that up for an Andy Dalton type?

 

[Idgit]

A good QB is really hard to find, and the biggest problem is that you never know if you have your guy until you've committed significant snaps to him. That usually comes at huge cost in terms of picks and cap space. And nobody has a franchise guy in waiting. At best they have a lottery ticket with a pedigree in waiting.

We've made it clear that it's not our policy to draft and prepare a guy for a second contract with another team, so anybody complaining that we haven't done that yet is leaking hot air for no reason. There's what you want, and there's what can be done in a league with a cap and a CBA in place.

The best thing you can do is to put the the team in place and then throw multiple good options at the position and see what the competition brings out. That starts with carrying your QB3 from here until you find your replacement. It means taking a good QB in whatever round you find him until the you've got two behind Romo you really love under contract after you expect Romo to be done. It means churning them in camp and bringing in more than four of them early, cutting the ones you don't love quickly, and again relying on competition to show oh the traits you're looking for.

Personally, I'd rather take shots on the Bridgewaters and the Derek Carrs or Garropolos of the world than get in position to take a Mariota. It's too expensive moving that high and it carries way too much bust risk if you miss. Better to get some guys with all the tools, give them the players around them to be competitive, and develop them at a little bit of leisure.

If a guy is there on a restricted tender when we're actually in-market, I'm good with that route, too, but it'd have to be the right guy.

It's going to be really interesting to see if SEA resists the huge deal for Wilson. I'm not sure I would extend him as a top tier QB in their position. Also, will be fun to see how the Pats fare again without their Hall of Fame cheater in the lineup. They've done what you can to back Tom up, and they've got the team behind him. Now they get to see if he pans out or if it's back to the drawing board.

 

[Galian Beast]

You sign a FA thats been franchised your giving up two first rounders and probably over 50-60 million guarenteed if not more for a player there team isnt going to match

Do you want to give that up for an Andy Dalton type?

Another straw man, who said anything about Dalton. I'm just saying what are better options than blindly drafting a quarterback in round one. I'd much rather go after a veteran QB who's team isn't trying to pay him. Very well could happen for a team and Russell Wilson.

 

[darthseinfeld]

http://www.windycitygridiron.com/2013/10/24/5022068/the-myth-of-grooming-a-qb-from-the-draft

Great write up on the myth of developing a QB

Chicago hasnt effectively developed a QB since the 1940's.

The guy who wrote that articles grandfather was probably in Iwo Jima the last time Chicago successfully developed a QB

 

[Galian Beast]

A good QB is really hard to find, and the biggest problem is that you never know if you have your guy until you've committed significant snaps to him. That usually comes at huge cost in terms of picks and cap space. And nobody has a franchise guy in waiting. At best they have a lottery ticket with a pedigree in waiting.

We've made it clear that it's not our policy to draft and prepare a guy for a second contract with another team, so anybody complaining that we haven't done that yet is leaking hot air for no reason. There's what you want, and there's what can be done in a league with a cap and a CBA in place.

The best thing you can do is to put the the team in place and then throw multiple good options at the position and see what the competition brings out. That starts with carrying your QB3 from here until you find your replacement. It means taking a good QB in whatever round you find him until the you've got two behind Romo you really love under contract after you expect Romo to be done. It means churning them in camp and bringing in more than four of them early, cutting the ones you don't love quickly, and again relying on competition to show oh the traits you're looking for.

Personally, I'd rather take shots on the Bridgewaters and the Derek Carrs or Garropolos of the world than get in position to take a Mariota. It's too expensive moving that high and it carries way too much bust risk if you miss. Better to get some guys with all the tools, give them the players around them to be competitive, and develop them at a little bit of leisure.

If a guy is there on a restricted tender when we're actually in-market, I'm good with that route, too, but it'd have to be the right guy.

It's going to be really interesting to see if SEA resists the huge deal for Wilson. I'm not sure I would extend him as a top tier QB in their position. Also, will be fun to see how the Pats fare again without their Hall of Fame cheater in the lineup. They've done what you can to back Tom up, and they've got the team behind him. Now they get to see if he pans out or if it's back to the drawing board.

Great post.

 

[DFWJC]

you do realize that in the last 20 years how few SB winning QBs have not come from the first rd, right?
Wilson
Brees
Warner
Brady

The ODDS of getting a franchize QB after the first rd are horrible. In the last 10 years you only have Wilson. Romo was taken in 2003 so you can go farther really. Then you only get Brady, then Brees (who was an early 2nd) and then a few years more you get Warner.

UDFA SB winning QBs consist of Warner.
QBs that were picked after 3rd rd (Wilson) Brady.

So your idea that you can get one after the first rd is the same as counting on winning the lottery.

Like with all other positions, the odds are worse > round 1

But there are 8 QBs currently in the league that have won a SB.
5 were 1st rounders (Manning , Manning, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Flacco
3 were not 1st rounders (Brady, Brees, Wilson)

 

[Galian Beast]

Chicago hasnt effectively developed a QB since the 1940's.

The guy who wrote that articles grandfather was probably in Iwo Jima the last time Chicago successfully developed a QB

Cutler is better than the vast majority of QBs that are drafted in the first round and he realizes the difficulty of finding a franchise guy.

 

[darthseinfeld]

A good QB is really hard to find, and the biggest problem is that you never know if you have your guy until you've committed significant snaps to him. That usually comes at huge cost in terms of picks and cap space. And nobody has a franchise guy in waiting. At best they have a lottery ticket with a pedigree in waiting.

We've made it clear that it's not our policy to draft and prepare a guy for a second contract with another team, so anybody complaining that we haven't done that yet is leaking hot air for no reason. There's what you want, and there's what can be done in a league with a cap and a CBA in place.

The best thing you can do is to put the the team in place and then throw multiple good options at the position and see what the competition brings out. That starts with carrying your QB3 from here until you find your replacement. It means taking a good QB in whatever round you find him until the you've got two behind Romo you really love under contract after you expect Romo to be done. It means churning them in camp and bringing in more than four of them early, cutting the ones you don't love quickly, and again relying on competition to show oh the traits you're looking for.

Personally, I'd rather take shots on the Bridgewaters and the Derek Carrs or Garropolos of the world than get in position to take a Mariota. It's too expensive moving that high and it carries way too much bust risk if you miss. Better to get some guys with all the tools, give them the players around them to be competitive, and develop them at a little bit of leisure.

If a guy is there on a restricted tender when we're actually in-market, I'm good with that route, too, but it'd have to be the right guy.

It's going to be really interesting to see if SEA resists the huge deal for Wilson. I'm not sure I would extend him as a top tier QB in their position. Also, will be fun to see how the Pats fare again without their Hall of Fame cheater in the lineup. They've done what you can to back Tom up, and they've got the team behind him. Now they get to see if he pans out or if it's back to the drawing board.

1 and a half years worth of snaps. Thats when both Romo and Rodgers got extended ( not counting Romo's 2 year deal in 2016)

 

[viman96]

you do realize that in the last 20 years how few SB winning QBs have not come from the first rd, right?
Wilson
Brees
Warner
Brady

The ODDS of getting a franchize QB after the first rd are horrible. In the last 10 years you only have Wilson. Romo was taken in 2003 so you can go farther really. Then you only get Brady, then Brees (who was an early 2nd) and then a few years more you get Warner.

UDFA SB winning QBs consist of Warner.
QBs that were picked after 3rd rd (Wilson) Brady.

So your idea that you can get one after the first rd is the same as counting on winning the lottery.

Yep. I get it that it is more likely of finding a franchise QB in the 1st round. But my point is you do not need to limit yourself to the 1st round because it is possible to finding one in the later rounds. I am open to all options.

 

[Galian Beast]

The odds are worse > round 1

But there are 8 QBs currently in the league that have won a SB.
5 were 1st rounders (Manning , Manning, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Flacco
3 were not 1st rounders (Brady, Brees, Wilson)

I imagine if we look at the total number of quarterbacks to play in the super bowl (not just win it) the balance would shift even further towards 1st rounders. Same thing with the Championship rounds.

 

[theogt]

I think a lot of you missed the point.

The point is that drafted a quarterback prematurely doesn't help us, and doesn't make us more secure. You draft a quarterback when you think Romo can't go anymore or you sign one in free agency.

This is nonsensical. If we draft a QB next year, by the time Romo retires, that new QB would be ready to take over. And if we know by then that the new QB isn't a long term answer, we can go back to the well. The idea is to make sure the franchise isn't adrift for 3-5 years or longer in search of a QB.

 

[Galian Beast]

This is nonsensical. If we draft a QB next year, by the time Romo retires, that new QB would be ready to take over. And if we know by then that the new QB isn't a long term answer, we can go back to the well. The idea is to make sure the franchise adrift for 3-5 years or longer in search of a QB.

That new QB would be ready to take over? NFL Draft history shows that they are more likely to not be ready, and worse, they would be more expensive given their rookie contract would be up.

Going back to the well? Now you want to draft yet another quarterback, taking MORE resources away for Romo, the actual franchise qb...

Nonsensical indeed.

 

[darthseinfeld]

Another straw man, who said anything about Dalton. I'm just saying what are better options than blindly drafting a quarterback in round one. I'd much rather go after a veteran QB who's team isn't trying to pay him. Very well could happen for a team and Russell Wilson.

I said " Dalton Type "

Those are the only types of QBs a team wont match an offer. Any legit franchise QB a team is going to match, and you cant poison pill anymore. And Jones wouldn't if we could

 

[darthseinfeld]

Cutler is better than the vast majority of QBs that are drafted in the first round and he realizes the difficulty of finding a franchise guy.

He team also hasnt drafted a QB before the 4th round in 17 years. They haven't exactly tried

 

[darthseinfeld]

Straw man argument.

I would either

a) Draft a QB a year or two before Romo retires
b) Sign a free agent QB, even if they are franchised
c) Trade up in the draft for a QB when the time is right

It mostly depends on Romo's ability to continue performing and it depends on who is in the draft and in free agency at the time.

How is that a " straw man" argument?

 

[BoysFan4ever]

I was really hoping they would have drafted Petty from Baylor....I think he'll be a good NFL guy.

 

[Galian Beast]

I said " Dalton Type "

Those are the only types of QBs a team wont match an offer. Any legit franchise QB a team is going to match, and you cant poison pill anymore. And Jones wouldn't if we could

A lot of things happen and a lot of opportunities are out there to get guys from Peyton Manning to Drew Brees to Carson Palmer.... Depending on how good the team is outside of the QB position will determine how good of a QB you need to be successful, but that route shouldn't be ignored.