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

[Sydla]

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

First? Overall?

Above two franchise QBs?

LOL.

 

[NEODOG]

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"?

A Top 5 QB is a can't miss 10yr+ prospect.....the failure in that is the proof....especially when you factor in #1 overall vs top 5 vs rd1

 

[Sydla]

A Top 5 QB is a can't miss 10yr+ prospect.....the failure in that is the proof....especially when you factor in #1 overall vs top 5 vs rd1

LOL.

You just said that Top 5 QBs have a higher failure rate than other QBs taken in the first round. You are wrong. Actual facts show that you are wrong.

Nearly one out of every two QBs taken in the Top 5 pan out compared to just over one out of every 4 other first round QBs. On my list of 9, every one with the exception of Bortles, is likely going to be a 10 year can't miss guy. And people say Bortles is trending that way as well. Plus you have both Winston and Mariota from last year's draft, with Winston showing he has real promise.

So just admit you pulled something out of your butt and got caught. It's OK to admit you were wrong.

 

[NEODOG]

LOL.

You just said that Top 5 QBs have a higher failure rate than other QBs taken in the first round. You are wrong. Actual facts show that you are wrong.

Nearly one out of every two QBs taken in the Top 5 pan out compared to just over one out of every 4 other first round QBs. On my list of 9, every one with the exception of Bortles, is likely going to be a 10 year can't miss guy. And people say Bortles is trending that way as well. Plus you have both Winston and Mariota from last year's draft, with Winston showing he has real promise.

So just admit you pulled something out of your butt and got caught. It's OK to admit you were wrong.

Not one bit....... The failure % is higher drafting a QB top 5......PLAIN & SIMPLE

Plus the fact that Peyton, leaf & drunkenmiller aren't included in 20yes as I stated

How damn dense do you have to be to understand that simple FACT
2 out of 20 have won a SB only 2, no more, no less

 

[ccb04]

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

I don't know (too many variables). Vic Beasley for instance, was pretty darn good in college. He had 33 sacks, 52.2 tackles for loss, and 7 forced fumbles at Clemson. Not to mention, his presence in part made Shaq Lawson & Kevin Dodd role players...both of whom are potential 1st round picks in 2016.

But that wasn't really my point. Basically, it's often difficult to project next level production regardless of collegiate production. Case in point, Danielle Hunter had 4.5 sacks over his last 2 seasons at LSU, but had 6 sacks as a rookie 3rd round pick in the NFL...which was good for 2nd among all rookies. He had all of the measurables and character you'd want, but didn't have the gaudy sack numbers in college & slid to the 3rd. Additionally, neither of the top 2 sack leaders among rookies, were 1st round picks.

I personally don't zero in on any one particular style...& believe different methods can be effective. Beasley is a smaller quick-twitch speed rusher that played a good deal on the right side in college...whereas Bosa played a good deal on the left side, is quite a bit larger, & relies more on power. Both can & have proven effective...and I do like several aspects of Bosa's game. Both were also game planned against routinely at the college level.

 

[dfense]

I like it. With all the non stop 24 hour speculation, Ramsey then Bosa are still my best choice at #4

 

[Sydla]

Not one bit....... The failure % is higher drafting a QB top 5......PLAIN & SIMPLE

Plus the fact that Peyton, leaf & drunkenmiller aren't included in 20yes as I stated

How damn dense do you have to be to understand that simple FACT
2 out of 20 have won a SB only 2, no more, no less

The failure rate of Top 5 QBs is not higher than QBs taken elsewhere in the draft.

 

[Cowboys1fan]

First? Overall?

Above two franchise QBs?

LOL.

I'm talking true defensive end positions my bad

 

[DFWJC]

First? Overall?

Above two franchise QBs?

LOL.

Franchise QBs? That remains to be seen.

These guys are rated below Mark Sanchez and just slightly above Geno Smith and EJ Manuel. They are rated Way below Winston from last year....or guys like Luck, Rodgers, or Ryan coming out.

Granted that rankings can be and have been wrong (plenty) but it is legit to ask whether or not the hype of the position isn't pushing them up.
Not unusual for QBs, but it's worth asking.

 

[Verdict]

I don't need predictions. I'll take the facts of it and the 27 games the player has actually missed over your hoping and wishful thinking thanks!

Funny how you'll proclaim someone else being "Miss Cleo" while you're the idiot trying to predict health for a quarterback who hasn't played a full season since 2012? Self awareness isn't one of your strong points, is it?





And you stop believing that a 36-year old player will only get healthier over time.

I don't think there is a clear best answer to this debate. Both sides of the issue have merit. I think the "must have a QB at all costs camp" are ignoring the fact that none of the QBs may have a high enough grade, or may not be looked at by our team as being worthy of the pick for whatever reason. In that event it would be foolish to waste the pick on a QB just to have the illusion you have your next franchise QB.

On the other hand they are right about it being the most valuable position on the field, and if you are positive you have the next Tony Romo sitting there at #4 then it is really a very easy choice to pull the trigger on, or to even pay a premium to go get him all the way up to #1 if you REALLY believe he is the next Romo.

I think all the teeth knashing against the draft a QB group isn't that they are opposed to the concept as much as concerned that none of these guys were considered to be the next Romo, and now suddenly they are being hyped more than Andrew Luck, who isn't quite the savior most thought he would be by now. There are some that would say that even if the Tom Brady, or Peyton Manning or Tony Romo is there at #4 overall you don't take him, or you don't move up to go and get him, but I really think that would be a VERY small percentage of this board.

The problem is that no one knows if you are drafting the next Peyton Manning, or Ryan Leaf.

 

[Verdict]

Franchise QBs? That remains to be seen.

These guys are rated below Mark Sanchez and just slightly above Geno Smith and EJ Manuel. They are rated Way below Winston from last year....or guys like Luck, Rodgers, or Ryan coming out.

Granted that rankings can be and have been wrong (plenty) but it is legit to ask whether or not the hype of the position isn't pushing them up.
Not unusual for QBs, but it's worth asking.

I wish I could like this post more than once as well. Rational thoughts are appreciated, especially at this time of year.

 

[Verdict]

That would be none, but the less informed don't consider that fact in their rush to judgement either.



We've been there and done that. Tried and failed repeatedly to 'cheat the system' and fill the most difficult position in sports 'on the cheap'. And the miserable results speak for themselves.

I can only hope that Jones and Co have learned from past mistakes while apparently some uninformed fans haven't.

Actually, we did cheat the system with Romo, so that point isn't your best argument for drafting a QB. There are good points for your argument, but that one is farther down the list from my point of view.

You actually have a pretty good point, but really aren't doing it justice. Statistically speaking, you have a better chance of getting your franchise QB the earlier you draft him. But over drafting a guy won't make him the next Peyton Manning, will it? Of course it won't!

The statistics are IRRELEVANT in the decision at #4. What is relevant is WHAT GRADE DO WE HAVE ON THE TOP QBs? If the grade is there, everything will take care of itsself. If it is not there, well then you are probably drafting the next Ryan Leaf and wasting the 4th pick.

 

[Stash]

I don't think there is a clear best answer to this debate. Both sides of the issue have merit. I think the "must have a QB at all costs camp" are ignoring the fact that none of the QBs may have a high enough grade, or may not be looked at by our team as being worthy of the pick for whatever reason. In that event it would be foolish to waste the pick on a QB just to have the illusion you have your next franchise QB.

On the other hand they are right about it being the most valuable position on the field, and if you are positive you have the next Tony Romo sitting there at #4 then it is really a very easy choice to pull the trigger on, or to even pay a premium to go get him all the way up to #1 if you REALLY believe he is the next Romo.

I think all the teeth knashing against the draft a QB group isn't that they are opposed to the concept as much as concerned that none of these guys were considered to be the next Romo, and now suddenly they are being hyped more than Andrew Luck, who isn't quite the savior most thought he would be by now. There are some that would say that even if the Tom Brady, or Peyton Manning or Tony Romo is there at #4 overall you don't take him, or you don't move up to go and get him, but I really think that would be a VERY small percentage of this board.

The problem is that no one knows if you are drafting the next Peyton Manning, or Ryan Leaf.

I see two consensus top 10 quarterbacks, so if they're wrong, essentially everyone is wrong. I can deal with taking a chance on a player that everyone may be wrong about. But I don't see the traits that helped Ryan Leaf and Jamarcus Russell bust in either of these two players.

 

[Killerinstinct]

I see two consensus top 10 quarterbacks, so if they're wrong, essentially everyone is wrong. I can deal with taking a chance on a player that everyone may be wrong about. But I don't see the traits that helped Ryan Leaf and Jamarcus Russell bust in either of these two players.

Even though I am in the "no way to qb at 4 camp" I agree completely that Goff and Wentz are smart, high character guys and the bust potential is low. I also believe the elite potential is low too though.

 

[Stash]

Actually, we did cheat the system with Romo, so that point isn't your best argument for drafting a QB.

"We" did nothing of the kind. Sean Payton, and by extension Bill Parcells did. They found him, not anyone still involved.

There are good points for your argument, but that one is farther down the list from my point of view.

You actually have a pretty good point, but really aren't doing it justice. Statistically speaking, you have a better chance of getting your franchise QB the earlier you draft him. But over drafting a guy won't make him the next Peyton Manning, will it? Of course it won't!

The statistics are IRRELEVANT in the decision at #4. What is relevant is WHAT GRADE DO WE HAVE ON THE TOP QBs? If the grade is there, everything will take care of itsself. If it is not there, well then you are probably drafting the next Ryan Leaf and wasting the 4th pick.

I'll repeat that I have zero faith in what anyone inside Valley Ranch thinks about it. None of them have done anything to earn the respect or benefit of the doubt on the subject of quarterbacks from me.

Outside consensus of opinion on the top two quarterbacks carries more weight for me.

 

[Stash]

Even though I am in the "no way to qb at 4 camp" I agree completely that Goff and Wentz are smart, high character guys and the bust potential is low. I also believe the elite potential is low too though.

I'm curious as to what makes you feel that way?

 

[Killerinstinct]

I'm curious as to what makes you feel that way?

Assuming the question is about the elite part

Wentz played against lower competition at a small school and still only started for 2 years.
Goff - I really am not a fan of this throwing motion and the way his deep passes are rainbows. When I think of an elite qb it is someone with a really strong arm where the ball gets there in a hurry not allowing defenses to adjust and get picks.

I think they are both good prospects for that 2nd tier of NFL starters. Maybe 11th to 18th rated qb's as starters after development. I think you can win with either if you are strong at the other positions but neither screams elite to me. Just my opinion.

 

[Stash]

Assuming the question is about the elite part

Wentz played against lower competition at a small school and still only started for 2 years.
Goff - I really am not a fan of this throwing motion and the way his deep passes are rainbows. When I think of an elite qb it is someone with a really strong arm where the ball gets there in a hurry not allowing defenses to adjust and get picks.

I think they are both good prospects for that 2nd tier of NFL starters. Maybe 11th to 18th rated qb's as starters after development. I think you can win with either if you are strong at the other positions but neither screams elite to me. Just my opinion.

I can appreciate that. And thanks for taking the time to explain your thought process. From my perspective, I think Goff's arm is plenty strong enough and compares to Hall of Famers Joe Montana and Peyton Manning in my book.

 

[Verdict]

"We" did nothing of the kind. Sean Payton, and by extension Bill Parcells did. They found him, not anyone still involved.



I'll repeat that I have zero faith in what anyone inside Valley Ranch thinks about it. None of them have done anything to earn the respect or benefit of the doubt on the subject of quarterbacks from me.

Outside consensus of opinion on the top two quarterbacks carries more weight for me.

Really no one knows what the rest of the NFL thinks either. Just the media and it changes all the time. For instance Wentz was viewed as a second round prospect earlier this year. Who wants to ignore this now?

 

[Stash]

Really no one knows what the rest of the NFL thinks either. Just the media and it changes all the time. For instance Wentz was viewed as a second round prospect earlier this year. Who wants to ignore this now?

Wentz may have been rated that way by some, but others have had him ranked higher for some time as well.