Why draft a QB at #4 overall? Russell Wilson...

[NorthwestDallas40]

The reason why we SHOULD draft a QB at 4th overall comes down to the economics of the QB position. I'm not saying that Wentz or Goff will ever be as good as Russell Wilson, but when the Seahawks drafted WIlson and he became their starter, they had 4 years of salary cap bliss. They were paying rookie money (3rd round rookie money to boot) for great production at the most expensive position on the team. Which allowed them to spend big elsewhere (re-signing Lynch, Chancellor, Sherman, etc.) and make their Super Bowl run. If, and this is a BIG IF, we think that our FO can put together a strong playoff roster within the next 5 years (the length of a first round rookie contract) AND we believe that Romo is not going to last those 5 years, we should draft Wentz or Goff. While any first round QB can be a bust, QBs legitimately ranked and drafted within the top 5 have a better chance of not being a bust. Again, we will not likely be drafting within the top 5 anytime soon, so I strongly favor getting the QB now, grooming him for a year or two behind Romo, and then seeing if he can legitimately beat Romo out in year three. If so, we can cut Romo, and we'd have three years of a cheap starting QB and can spend elsewhere to make a run.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

That's one of the points I have been making for a while. The rookie cap makes it more feasible for us to draft a QB and sit him for a year or two.

Even still, back when there was no rookie cap, the Dolphins tried to get smart and drafted Jake Long instead of Matt Ryan. I don't think Ryan is an unworldly QB, but he's pretty darn good and there's no way the Dolphins don't regret that decision and Long had a pretty strong career.





YR

 

[RS12]

For every Russell Wilson there are 10 Gino Carmazzis.

 

[NorthwestDallas40]

For every Russell Wilson there are 10 Gino Carmazzis.

But there are only a few Jamarcus Russells and Ryan Leafs, and a bunch of Peyton Mannings, Eli Mannings, Andrew Lucks, Cam Newtons, Matt Ryans, Jameis Winstons, Marcus Mariottas, etc. Which is my point about drafting a QB in the top 5 when you have the chance... better odds of finding a franchise QB.

 

[RS12]

Five years of a rookie QB contract allows you to pay the O Line.

 

[Sydla]

But there are only a few Jamarcus Russells and Ryan Leafs, and a bunch of Peyton Mannings, Eli Mannings, Andrew Lucks, Cam Newtons, Matt Ryans, Jameis Winstons, Marcus Mariottas, etc. Which is my point about drafting a QB in the top 5 when you have the chance... better odds of finding a franchise QB.

There are more than a few Russells and Leafs. You make it seem like a Top 5 has a high hit rate.

That's simply not true. Starting with 2000, Top 5 QBs:

2001 - Vick - never won a SB and was an enigma for much of his career
2002 - David Carr, Joey Harrington - both were busts
2003 - Carson Palmer - ended up being a good QB
2004 - Manning, River - good QBs
2005 - Smith - the definition of average, nothing spectacular but doesn't suck either.
2006 - V. Young - bust
2007 - Russell - bust
2008 - Ryan - good QB
2009 - Stafford, Sanchez - one good QB, one bust
2010 - Bradford - bust
2011 - Newton - good QB
2012 - Luck, Griffin - one good, one bust
2014 - Bortle - jury out
2015 - Winston, Mariota - jury out

So over that period 19 QBs drafted Top 5

- 7 were busts - Bradford, Griffin, Sanchez, Russell, Young, Carr, Harrington

- 7 were "good" (varying ranges of good mind you) - Luck, Newton, Stafford, Ryan, Manning, Rivers, Palmer

- 2 were hard to describe - Smith is a decent but not particularly good QB and Vick showed ridiculous athleticism but he wasn't much of a QB.

And of that group of 19, only ONE has won a SB - Manning.

I am all for taking a QB at 4 if that's who the Cowboys view as the best player at that pick. But to try to make it seem like there's limited risk with a QB in the Top 5 is a stretch.

 

[Irvin88_4life]

There are more than a few Russells and Leafs. You make it seem like a Top 5 has a high hit rate.

That's simply not true. Starting with 2000, Top 5 QBs:

2001 - Vick - never won a SB and was an enigma for much of his career
2002 - David Carr, Joey Harrington - both were busts
2003 - Carson Palmer - ended up being a good QB
2004 - Manning, River - good QBs
2005 - Smith - the definition of average, nothing spectacular but doesn't suck either.
2006 - V. Young - bust
2007 - Russell - bust
2008 - Ryan - good QB
2009 - Stafford, Sanchez - one good QB, one bust
2010 - Bradford - bust
2011 - Newton - good QB
2012 - Luck, Griffin - one good, one bust
2014 - Bortle - jury out
2015 - Winston, Mariota - jury out

So over that period 19 QBs drafted Top 5

- 7 were busts - Bradford, Griffin, Sanchez, Russell, Young, Carr, Harrington

- 7 were "good" (varying ranges of good mind you) - Luck, Newton, Stafford, Ryan, Manning, Rivers, Palmer

- 2 were hard to describe - Smith is a decent but not particularly good QB and Vick showed ridiculous athleticism but he wasn't much of a QB.

And of that group of 19, only ONE has won a SB - Manning.

I am all for taking a QB at 4 if that's who the Cowboys view as the best player at that pick. But to try to make it seem like there's limited risk with a QB in the Top 5 is a stretch.

Thats my point about not reaching for QBs....our any position. If we are at 4 and Wentz it Goff is best player available take him if not take Ramsey, Jack etc. Let's not be the Browns

 

[NorthwestDallas40]

There are more than a few Russells and Leafs. You make it seem like a Top 5 has a high hit rate.

That's simply not true. Starting with 2000, Top 5 QBs:

2001 - Vick - never won a SB and was an enigma for much of his career
2002 - David Carr, Joey Harrington - both were busts
2003 - Carson Palmer - ended up being a good QB
2004 - Manning, River - good QBs
2005 - Smith - the definition of average, nothing spectacular but doesn't suck either.
2006 - V. Young - bust
2007 - Russell - bust
2008 - Ryan - good QB
2009 - Stafford, Sanchez - one good QB, one bust
2010 - Bradford - bust
2011 - Newton - good QB
2012 - Luck, Griffin - one good, one bust
2014 - Bortle - jury out
2015 - Winston, Mariota - jury out

So over that period 19 QBs drafted Top 5

- 7 were busts - Bradford, Griffin, Sanchez, Russell, Young, Carr, Harrington

- 7 were "good" (varying ranges of good mind you) - Luck, Newton, Stafford, Ryan, Manning, Rivers, Palmer

- 2 were hard to describe - Smith is a decent but not particularly good QB and Vick showed ridiculous athleticism but he wasn't much of a QB.

And of that group of 19, only ONE has won a SB - Manning.

I am all for taking a QB at 4 if that's who the Cowboys view as the best player at that pick. But to try to make it seem like there's limited risk with a QB in the Top 5 is a stretch.

Good points, but I bet the hit rate on positions other than QB in the top 5 isn't THAT much better than the 58% you cite for QBs (11 of 19); there is no guarantee on non-QB position players in the top 5 either. And most other positions simply don't come close to the cost of starting QB. Which is the point of my post: save a boatload of money by drafting a rookiereplacement QB for Romo. So, for me, even if it's a slight reach at QB, I take one at 4. And it's not like any of the non-QB position players mentioned for us in the top 4 -- Bosa, Ramsey, Jack -- are without warts.

 

[vicjagger]

For every Russell Wilson there are 10 Gino Carmazzis.

Hey, now. Every town needs a pizza joint.

 

[Beast_from_East]

There are more than a few Russells and Leafs. You make it seem like a Top 5 has a high hit rate.

That's simply not true. Starting with 2000, Top 5 QBs:

2001 - Vick - never won a SB and was an enigma for much of his career
2002 - David Carr, Joey Harrington - both were busts
2003 - Carson Palmer - ended up being a good QB
2004 - Manning, River - good QBs
2005 - Smith - the definition of average, nothing spectacular but doesn't suck either.
2006 - V. Young - bust
2007 - Russell - bust
2008 - Ryan - good QB
2009 - Stafford, Sanchez - one good QB, one bust
2010 - Bradford - bust
2011 - Newton - good QB
2012 - Luck, Griffin - one good, one bust
2014 - Bortle - jury out
2015 - Winston, Mariota - jury out

So over that period 19 QBs drafted Top 5

- 7 were busts - Bradford, Griffin, Sanchez, Russell, Young, Carr, Harrington

- 7 were "good" (varying ranges of good mind you) - Luck, Newton, Stafford, Ryan, Manning, Rivers, Palmer

- 2 were hard to describe - Smith is a decent but not particularly good QB and Vick showed ridiculous athleticism but he wasn't much of a QB.

And of that group of 19, only ONE has won a SB - Manning.

I am all for taking a QB at 4 if that's who the Cowboys view as the best player at that pick. But to try to make it seem like there's limited risk with a QB in the Top 5 is a stretch.

I think you just made his point bro.

7 good QBs and 7 bust QBs......................50% chance of landing a franchise QB in the top 5

Outside of the top 5, the chances of finding a franchise QB are a hell of a lot lower than 50%...................maybe like 10% max.

Ergo, the best chance you got to get a franchise QB is in the top 5, after that the percentages go way down.

 

[Redball Express]

There are more than a few Russells and Leafs. You make it seem like a Top 5 has a high hit rate.

That's simply not true. Starting with 2000, Top 5 QBs:

2001 - Vick - never won a SB and was an enigma for much of his career
2002 - David Carr, Joey Harrington - both were busts
2003 - Carson Palmer - ended up being a good QB
2004 - Manning, River - good QBs
2005 - Smith - the definition of average, nothing spectacular but doesn't suck either.
2006 - V. Young - bust
2007 - Russell - bust
2008 - Ryan - good QB
2009 - Stafford, Sanchez - one good QB, one bust
2010 - Bradford - bust
2011 - Newton - good QB
2012 - Luck, Griffin - one good, one bust
2014 - Bortle - jury out
2015 - Winston, Mariota - jury out

So over that period 19 QBs drafted Top 5

- 7 were busts - Bradford, Griffin, Sanchez, Russell, Young, Carr, Harrington

- 7 were "good" (varying ranges of good mind you) - Luck, Newton, Stafford, Ryan, Manning, Rivers, Palmer

- 2 were hard to describe - Smith is a decent but not particularly good QB and Vick showed ridiculous athleticism but he wasn't much of a QB.

And of that group of 19, only ONE has won a SB - Manning.

I am all for taking a QB at 4 if that's who the Cowboys view as the best player at that pick. But to try to make it seem like there's limited risk with a QB in the Top 5 is a stretch.

Where was RG3 picked?

 

[RandyOh]

There are more than a few Russells and Leafs. You make it seem like a Top 5 has a high hit rate.

That's simply not true. Starting with 2000, Top 5 QBs:

2001 - Vick - never won a SB and was an enigma for much of his career
2002 - David Carr, Joey Harrington - both were busts
2003 - Carson Palmer - ended up being a good QB
2004 - Manning, River - good QBs
2005 - Smith - the definition of average, nothing spectacular but doesn't suck either.
2006 - V. Young - bust
2007 - Russell - bust
2008 - Ryan - good QB
2009 - Stafford, Sanchez - one good QB, one bust
2010 - Bradford - bust
2011 - Newton - good QB
2012 - Luck, Griffin - one good, one bust
2014 - Bortle - jury out
2015 - Winston, Mariota - jury out

So over that period 19 QBs drafted Top 5

- 7 were busts - Bradford, Griffin, Sanchez, Russell, Young, Carr, Harrington

- 7 were "good" (varying ranges of good mind you) - Luck, Newton, Stafford, Ryan, Manning, Rivers, Palmer

- 2 were hard to describe - Smith is a decent but not particularly good QB and Vick showed ridiculous athleticism but he wasn't much of a QB.

And of that group of 19, only ONE has won a SB - Manning.

I am all for taking a QB at 4 if that's who the Cowboys view as the best player at that pick. But to try to make it seem like there's limited risk with a QB in the Top 5 is a stretch.

Great work layin the smackdown on em

 

[reddyuta]

Great work layin the smackdown on em

no its not .you can pick any position in the first Rd and you will see similar results.

 

[conner01]

To me it's not about is the QB a top 5 talent but can the QB have a good chance of developing into a solid starter
The QB position is almost always over drafted. By that I mean a QB taken at 5 may be the 10 best player on your board but the position is so important and so hard to fill you almost have to over draft them
To me if you think one of these guys can be your future starting QB then you take him even if he is not the top guy on your board because chances are in every round there is going to be a guy you have ranked over the QB availible
And there is no denying the higher you take a QB the better chance you have of hitting on one
I have been an advocate of a middle round QB the last few years just to have a shot at hitting on one. But we are approaching the time we will need one and to me past the time to hope and pray you can develope a middle round guy

 

[RandyOh]

no its not .you can pick any position in the first Rd and you will see similar results.

Seems there is trend of 2nd qb taken with higher bust rate tho.

 

[Floatyworm]

That's one of the points I have been making for a while. The rookie cap makes it more feasible for us to draft a QB and sit him for a year or two.

Even still, back when there was no rookie cap, the Dolphins tried to get smart and drafted Jake Long instead of Matt Ryan. I don't think Ryan is an unworldly QB, but he's pretty darn good and there's no way the Dolphins don't regret that decision and Long had a pretty strong career.





YR

Funny you bring this up because that situation is almost identical to ours....and Carson Wentz is almost identical to Matt Ryan. I thought the Dolphins screwed up when they passed on Ryan. And then they compounded that mistake...by taking Jake Long and then letting him walk. And then they compounded that mistake w/ another mistake by reaching for Tannehill. And now look... they are still paying for that Parcell's blunder....by basically having to let every decent free agent they have walk because they can't afford it. And on top of that...Now they are starting over w/ a new coaching staff for the 2nd time because of that one mistake. Had they just took the franchise QB...@ least the franchise is stable...and they would have had something to build around.

I hope there is a lesson to be learned from that mess

 

[Sydla]

I think you just made his point bro.

7 good QBs and 7 bust QBs......................50% chance of landing a franchise QB in the top 5

Outside of the top 5, the chances of finding a franchise QB are a hell of a lot lower than 50%...................maybe like 10% max.

Ergo, the best chance you got to get a franchise QB is in the top 5, after that the percentages go way down.

I did no such thing.

He made it seem like for every Leaf or Russell taken in the Top 5, there are tons of other QBs taken in the Top 5 that pan out. That's simply not true. And in reality, the percentage is lower than 50% because I was kind on Vick and Smith, who frankly never became the QBs envisioned when drafted by their teams.

Basically, a Top 5 QB is a crapshoot. Maybe not as bad as saying banking on a 3rd round QB but still, there are a **** ton more busts in the Top 5 than just Leaf and Russell.

 

[Vinnie2u]

no its not .you can pick any position in the first Rd and you will see similar results.

Scared money don't make money... All I've heard from the naysayers is don't pick a QB at 4 cause he could be a bust. Don't really understand that.. If the scouts and talent evaluators say player x is good.. You get him. YouTube scouts don't know jack.

 

[Ashwynn]

The reason why we SHOULD draft a QB at 4th overall comes down to the economics of the QB position. I'm not saying that Wentz or Goff will ever be as good as Russell Wilson, but when the Seahawks drafted WIlson and he became their starter, they had 4 years of salary cap bliss. They were paying rookie money (3rd round rookie money to boot) for great production at the most expensive position on the team. Which allowed them to spend big elsewhere (re-signing Lynch, Chancellor, Sherman, etc.) and make their Super Bowl run. If, and this is a BIG IF, we think that our FO can put together a strong playoff roster within the next 5 years (the length of a first round rookie contract) AND we believe that Romo is not going to last those 5 years, we should draft Wentz or Goff. While any first round QB can be a bust, QBs legitimately ranked and drafted within the top 5 have a better chance of not being a bust. Again, we will not likely be drafting within the top 5 anytime soon, so I strongly favor getting the QB now, grooming him for a year or two behind Romo, and then seeing if he can legitimately beat Romo out in year three. If so, we can cut Romo, and we'd have three years of a cheap starting QB and can spend elsewhere to make a run.

Preach it Brother. We need to grab a QB at 4. Period.

 

[Sydla]

Scared money don't make money... All I've heard from the naysayers is don't pick a QB at 4 cause he could be a bust. Don't really understand that.. If the scouts and talent evaluators say player x is good.. You get him. YouTube scouts don't know jack.

And we have people here saying don't take Jack at 4 either. Or don't take Ramsey at 4 either. So I am not sure what you are talking about with people saying it's only the QB not to take at 4.

Here's where I am at on this.

If the Cowboys do their due diligence and rate these guys that high, they should take the QB. But personally, from the outside, I am a bit weary of all 3 of these guys. People like Mayock and Kiper and other scouts have these guys high but I wonder how much of that is because QBs have a higher value than most players and as such, these guys are all completely overrated.

Going into their senior (or last seasons), guys like Luck, or Manning, or Bradford, or many of the other highly drafted QBs were thought of as elite kids heading into their last season. Wentz, Goff, Lynch........... these guys came out of pretty much nowhere this past season to cement themselves as arguably the best 3 QBs in this draft. You actually saw names like Hackenberg and the kid from MSU higher on most mocks heading into this past college season.

So I am often weary of guys who shoot up the draft boards, especially at QB because I wonder if the value is being overstated because of the need for QBs in this league.

But in the end, if the Cowboys view one or two of these guys as viable, potential franchise QBs and they have a chance to pick him, they should do it at 4.