The Great Dallas Draft Debate--Fans of QB at 4 won't like it

[NEODOG]

Here's a much better researched and more comprehensive article done on the subject. Everyone should read it.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2014/nfl-draft-round-round-quarterback-data

Again.... Prove my point wrong

You can't.... No matter what's written or research shows

Only 2 QB's drafted in the last 20yrs, in the top 5 have won a Superbowl.

It's a crap shoot AT BEST......

The reason I use the last 20 yrs is for the run/gun/spread that are prevalent since then.

Ignore that fact all you want........ My point stands

 

[Stash]

Again.... Prove my point wrong

You can't.... No matter what's written or research shows

Only 2 QB's drafted in the last 20yrs, in the top 5 have won a Superbowl.

It's a crap shoot AT BEST......

The reason I use the last 20 yrs is for the run/gun/spread that are prevalent since then.

Ignore that fact all you want........ My point stands

If you think that's any sort of a "point" at all, you have at it. Hold onto it as if it's an accomplishment or something that anyone outside of you gives a **** about. They don't. Because it's meaningless.

The fact is that people have done a better job of research than any of us ever have. And that research makes clear that success rates are higher the sooner you draft a quarterback.

And the only "crap shoot" is the nonsense some people will try (and fail) to throw against the wall, hoping it sticks. Like that useless number you're holding onto.

 

[NeonNinja]

Again.... Prove my point wrong

You can't.... No matter what's written or research shows

Only 2 QB's drafted in the last 20yrs, in the top 5 have won a Superbowl.

It's a crap shoot AT BEST......

The reason I use the last 20 yrs is for the run/gun/spread that are prevalent since then.

Ignore that fact all you want........ My point stands

What point?

 

[Irvin88_4life]

Gather info from what idiots?

It's actually simple. You have a guy who just recorded 8 sacks in the NFL in his 2nd year and you have a guy who has never played a NFL down. To say that Bosa will be SIGNIFICANTLY better than Lawrence isn't based in any real factual evidence.

Maybe he will be. But then again, there's a decent chance he might not be.

Besides isn't Bosa biggest concern is the low sack numbers?

 

[Irvin88_4life]

You very well might be right. Wentz or Goff aren't the greatest prospects. And if the Cowboys scouts believe that and pass at 4, I can live with that.

But if they believe Wentz or Goff have real potential to be a franchise QB and they pass on them because of some insanely idiotic belief that Romo is going to be healthy for the next 4 years and play at a high level and that they can find their next QB in the 4th round, well then, they are dumber than we could have ever imagined.

My whole argument here is based on the assumption that the scouts and draft gurus and anonymous sources around the league that both Wentz and Goff are considered Top 10 prospects in this draft. So in that sense, if a QB is the BPA at 4 for the Cowboys, they should take him. If the Cowboys think both suck.......... sure pass.

My fear though is that the logic the Cowboys will use at 4 to pass on a QB has nothing to do with the talent levels of these guys.

I fear of we don't draft a QB at 4 then most of you guys that wanted a QB will bash the Cowboys even if they didn't value them as franchise QBs. Seen this before guys say the same thing then when it happens is talk crap about jerry and company

 

[BigStar]

The point is the same....we aren't selecting Romo's replacement due to injuries because we are married to Romo and his contract for at least two more seasons regardless, just like SD is married to the contract of Rivers. Like us, SD doesn't expect to be drafting at #3 again, so why is it not wise for them to draft Rivers' replacement now and sit him for 2-3 seasons? I told you fans of taking a QB wouldn't like it, but I think everyone needs to adjust to the idea that #4 is extremely unlikely to be used on a QB this year, though we will likely draft one in rounds 3/4/5

Only Brady, Russell, Cousins, Hoyer and McBarron came into the playoffs as QBs not picked in the first round. We don't have the scouting department to draft past the first round All the remaining QBs were 1st round selections; Newton, Manning, Rodgers, Palmer, Rothlesberger (sp?), Smith, Bridgewater. Carrol knew the college game so well he stole Wilson in the 3rd, and Brady was only a "find" after Bledsoe went down.

If you go down the list of QBs and the round they are selected, the correlation is much higher with 1st round QBs being successful over later picks though there are some obvious exceptions.
http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?type=position

If Wentz/Goff is rated high enough; don't take the BPA need of Bosa or Ramsey (who I like as a S if we had the QB in place). Romo will not play 4 years unscathed; 2 healthy IF we are lucky and his body doesn't give up on him as it has recently; missed 13 games in last 2 seasons? His back was the problem before that and those only get better

 

[NEODOG]

What point?

Just because we sit in Top 5, picking a QB means failure rate is through the roof. Posters think that our savior is sitting there for the taking. Sudden fairy dust & mythical unicorns will appear and lead us to the promised land. The stats show otherwise..... In fact the % of failure is the greatest-- top 5 QB pick.

If our guys, think Wentz is it.... Then we should draft him. If he's not there, then we are settling for less.

Again, all signs point to us picking a QB....... But trophies and accolades vs failure aren't weighed equal.

 

[AzorAhai]

Yeah, it's not a good article.

The argument for drafting a QB is not to maximize the camp implications. It's to get a player at the hardest-to-fill position on the roster when you're in a rare position to do it. Because they really aren't often available elsewhere. It doesn't matter what the cap implications are (to a point). You need a QB? You take one where you can get one.

The stuff about the cap implications of cutting or trading Tony prior to 2018 are silly, because that's simply not going to happen. The contract was designed with 2018 as the first realistic 'out' year, and that's how it is.

The article sucks unless you don't want a QB at 4. Then it's an extremely well written article...

The Cowboys can get out of Romos deal as soon as next season if thats what they want to do. He carries a cap hit of 24.7 million in 2017 and a dead money hit of 19.6 million. If he's outright cut the cap hit of his dead money and the cap hit of a QB at 4 will be a virtual push.

If he's June 1st cut, he has a dead money hit of 10.7 million in 2017 with a savings of 14 million. They also get an extra 16 million in 2018 this way. Thats probably enough to cover the cap hits for a QB at 4 and the 1st year hits for a Frederick and maybe even Lawrence extension.

If they wait until 2018, he's can easily be cut. He would have a dead money hit of 8.9 million but savings of 16.3 million. June 1st cut creates even more room with 19.5 million in space and only 5.7 in dead money in 2017.

If they draft a QB at 4, Romo is going to be on the bubble starting next year. Another injury plagued year, or if he performs poorly he could be in trouble. I also fully expect them to move on in 2018 unless he is playing at an elite level, AND proves he can stay healthy. Both of which would seem to be unlikely to happen imo.

 

[Mr Cowboy]

How much do the Eagles have invested in Sam Bradford and Chase Daniel this year, not to mention talk if them trading up to add a rookie quarterback?

If this decision is at all being influenced by finances, this team is more screwed than any of us have ever feared.

Exactly, the talk is that the 49ers and Eagles are looking to trade down to take a QB, yet you look at their QB and they have quite a bit invested already. We have Romo and a box of chocolates and we would be stupid to pay for a first round QB? What is really stupid is wasting more resources on DBs. About 20% of the cap is dedicated to the DBs, and you want to take another one, one who will be a safety in the NFL? The reason that they look to draft DBs in Dallas is not for lack of using resources there, it is that they can't develop them and haven't in the past 10 years or longer. Using another high round draft pick would be stupid. That's why you have Whitehead and Street as your back ups, because they use all the picks re-drafting their mistakes.

Same with DEs, there is not a pass rusher available with the 4th pick. Bosa is not a pass rusher, neither is Buckner. Even if they were, how many rookie DEs make an impact in their rookie year? Furthermore, Gregory was ranked much higher in last year's draft than Bosa is in this year's draft, you have to give him a chance to play. He's only out for 4 games. Lawrence was a 2nd rounder the year before. So Bosa would be a back up when Lawrence returns.

The Cowboys proved this off season they are not all in to win this year. If they were they would have done more to upgrade the roster. Yeah they signed a few bargain basement players, but you need talent to win in the NFL. If Jerry is trying to go all in for his aging Qb, like the Broncos did, he failed miserably. They might as well build for the future, a QB would be a great start.

 

[Sydla]

Again.... Prove my point wrong

You can't.... No matter what's written or research shows

Only 2 QB's drafted in the last 20yrs, in the top 5 have won a Superbowl.

It's a crap shoot AT BEST......

The reason I use the last 20 yrs is for the run/gun/spread that are prevalent since then.

Ignore that fact all you want........ My point stands

It's a terrible fact.

So let's ask a hypothetical. Romo hurts his back next year and has to call it quits. Cowboys suck and have a Top 5 pick again in 2017 and need a QB. I guess you aren't taking a QB in the Top 5 then because of your "fact"?

 

[Sydla]

Just because we sit in Top 5, picking a QB means failure rate is through the roof. Posters think that our savior is sitting there for the taking. Sudden fairy dust & mythical unicorns will appear and lead us to the promised land. The stats show otherwise..... In fact the % of failure is the greatest-- top 5 QB pick.

If our guys, think Wentz is it.... Then we should draft him. If he's not there, then we are settling for less.

Again, all signs point to us picking a QB....... But trophies and accolades vs failure aren't weighed equal.

Of course. The failure rate for QBs in the entire draft is massive. But actual ANALYSIS shows that first round QBs tend to do much better than say a QB taken in the 3rd or 4th round.

 

[NEODOG]

Of course. The failure rate for QBs in the entire draft is massive. But actual ANALYSIS shows that first round QBs tend to do much better than say a QB taken in the 3rd or 4th round.

20 out of 50 in the list above 1st Rd

So 2 out of 5 fail.......thats a conservative estimate on my part{Tebow, more not included etc}
There isn't a Payton or Luck or Newton sitting here folks.......show me somewhere a poster was clamoring for Wentz in August '15? It doesn't exist

It's the fickle that suddenly say "this is my guy & our time" Makes absolutely NO SENSE

 

[Sydla]

20 out of 50 in the list above 1st Rd

So 2 out of 5 fail.......thats a conservative estimate on my part{Tebow, more not included etc}
There isn't a Payton or Luck or Newton sitting here folks.......show me somewhere a poster was clamoring for Wentz in August '15? It doesn't exist

It's the fickle that suddenly say "this is my guy & our time" Makes absolutely NO SENSE

You really don't understand this do you?

Yes, QBs bust a lot. Yes, first round QBs bust a lot. No one is denying that.

But first round QBs have a better hit rate than say 3rd and 4th round QBs. Are you seriously trying to deny that?

 

[DogFace]

Oh I think it's likely they won't take a QB at 4.

I think that would be a mistake and we'll feel that pain for sure 3-4 years from now.

Barnwell's point of poor investment at 4 is based on some pretty stupid factors. I might buy it if he made a better case for his claim. But things like how a young QB won't learn anything from Romo is pretty idiotic.

We'll discuss it again 3 years from today.

 

[DogFace]

You very well might be right. Wentz or Goff aren't the greatest prospects. And if the Cowboys scouts believe that and pass at 4, I can live with that.

But if they believe Wentz or Goff have real potential to be a franchise QB and they pass on them because of some insanely idiotic belief that Romo is going to be healthy for the next 4 years and play at a high level and that they can find their next QB in the 4th round, well then, they are dumber than we could have ever imagined.

My whole argument here is based on the assumption that the scouts and draft gurus and anonymous sources around the league that both Wentz and Goff are considered Top 10 prospects in this draft. So in that sense, if a QB is the BPA at 4 for the Cowboys, they should take him. If the Cowboys think both suck.......... sure pass.

My fear though is that the logic the Cowboys will use at 4 to pass on a QB has nothing to do with the talent levels of these guys.

What if they don't tell you how they made up their minds?

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

How is he not a serious injury risk? And his back is such a concern that he has a modified practice schedule where he practices now much less than he did prior to the injury.

LOL at thinking he's not an injury risk.

And you are right, this isn't the last draft of all time, but how many times do you expect to pick in the Top 5, shoot even the Top 10, in the next 5-6 years?

Quite a lot if 2015 is any indication with an injury Romo and no solid backup. lol

 

[NEODOG]

You really don't understand this do you?

Yes, QBs bust a lot. Yes, first round QBs bust a lot. No one is denying that.

But first round QBs have a better hit rate than say 3rd and 4th round QBs. Are you seriously trying to deny that?

There's a bigger failure rate involving that top 5 vs Rd 1.

 

[Sydla]

There's a bigger failure rate involving that top 5 vs Rd 1.

And you're wrong again. Since 1999 there have been 20 QBs taken in the Top 5. The "+" indicates a QB that was a franchise level QB. The "-" indicates a bust, non-franchise QB. I was conservative on Vick and Smith who got "-" but both could be considered franchise level QBs. Vick went to a NFC Champ game with Atlanta:

Couch (-), McNabb (+), Smith (-), Vick (-), Harrington (-), Palmer (+), Manning (+), Rivers (+), Smith (-), Young (-), Russell (-), Ryan (+), Stafford (+), Sanchez (-), Bradford (-), Newton (+), Luck (+), RG3 (-), Bortles (+).

That's 9 of 20 that are considered franchise level QBs. 45% "success" rate. It's higher if you consider Vick and/or Smith franchise level QBs.

Now here are the other QBs taken elsewhere in the first round since 1999, 24 in all:

Culpepper (+), McNown (-), Pennington (-), Ramsey (-), Boller (-), Grossman (-), Big Ben (+), Losman (-), Rodgers (+), Campbell (-), Leinart (-), Cutler (+), Quinn (-), Flacco (+), Freeman (-), Tebow (-), Locker (-), Gabbert (-), Ponder (-), Tannehill (+), Weeden (-), Manuel (-), Manziel (-), Bridgewater (+).

So of the 24, only 7 would be considered franchise level QBs. That's a hit rate of 29%. And that might be high because some may argue that a guy like Tannehill really isn't franchise level but the Dolphins have invested in him so I put him in the "+" category.

So explain to me again how there is a "bigger failure rate involving Top 5 versus Rd 1"?

 

[ccb04]

Yes bosa is. That's 8 sacks over his first two years. Bosa may get 8 his rookie year not to mention a force against the run.

Lawrence missed a good portion of his rookie season...but did have 2 sacks in the playoffs (1 in each game). He had 8 sacks in 2015, which was essentially his first full season.

Forecasting 8 sacks for a rookie is difficult. The 2 rookie leaders in 2015 were Preston Smith (8 sacks) & Danielle Hunter (6 sacks). Smith was a 2nd round pick & Hunter went in the 3rd round.

 

[Cowboys1fan]

Lawrence missed a good portion of his rookie season...but did have 2 sacks in the playoffs (1 in each game). He had 8 sacks in 2015, which was essentially his first full season.

Forecasting 8 sacks for a rookie is difficult. The 2 rookie leaders in 2015 were Preston Smith (8 sacks) & Danielle Hunter (6 sacks). Smith was a 2nd round pick & Hunter went in the 3rd round.

None of the guys coming out last year were close to good as bosa in college. He would have been selected first In the draft last season