Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Schneed10;663236]I'd say this is very much black-and-white thinking. You seem to hone in on two possible courses of action: draft best player available vs draft for need.

Couldn't (and shouldn't) teams be using a hybrid formula?

If the goal is to get better as a whole, teams should be drafting players for the value they provide over the player currently on the roster who will be displaced. So the possible Sam Bradford selection should be evaluated in light of the quality QB he's replacing, Jason Campbell. A Russell Okung selection should be evaluated in light of the T he's replacing, Stephon Heyer or Levi Jones (assuming Samuels retires). But further compounding matters is whether or not another player is available later in the draft who also represents an equal upgrade over the current roster.

And really, the crux of your argument is risk. You're saying that QBs are so hit and miss while Ts are more likely to pan out. Fair point. But I'd counter by noting that I'm not interested in getting better, I'm interested in getting [B]great[/B]. It doesn't do much for me to see a great LT come on, protect a mediocre QB for years, and watch us fade in and out of mediocrity.

I'm interested in a player we can build around, who covers for the deficiencies of others, who makes the team a more attractive destination for free agents, and who makes his teammates better rather than playing at a level commensurate to his teammates.

Granted the risk is there, but so is the reward. I'm in the camp that feels Campbell is not championship material, in my mind no offensive line (save the Hogs) could make Campbell a SB winning QB. IF Shanny sees something in Bradford or Clausen, that elite potential, I say go for it. I get what you're saying, you need to be right.

But still, sack up and put the chips on the table, I'm tired of being a fringe playoff team every single year. Nothing transforms your franchise like an elite QB.[/quote]I'll say this: if the Redskins draft board ends up looking anything like mine, neither BPA nor draft for need nor a hybrid philosophy would result in taking a Quarterback.

And I think all teams should use a hybrid of the two. But it's worth pointing out that taking a quarterback at No. 4 probably isn't a hybrid of any sort, it's quite strictly BPA. It can't really be justified if one of the quarterbacks doesn't come out to #1 or #2 on the overall board. Which, by definition, we'd be picking the best player available.

The other thing that has to factor into the risk-reward matrix is the finance structure of the NFL draft. Prudence is dictated by the top ten picks in a way that the rest of the draft simply doesn't force one to return anything. When you pick in the 20-25 range, you can take a player who has a high bust potential if the athleticism can offer you a potential superstar, because he's easy to get away from if he sucks.

But taking a QB in the top five, the risk pretty much has to be non-existent. Maybe you shoot for Peyton Manning and end up with Eli. That's a miss, but it's financially excusable. But you can't afford to shoot for Peyton Manning and end up with Ryan Leaf. That's financially inexcusable.

As it still is with all positions that aren't quarterback. There's too many options at the top of the draft to settle for a mediocre prospect at a premium position in a sea of excellent talents. There's systematic risk in the NFL draft, even at the top, but most bust picks at the top five are just gianormous reaches as opposed to poor development cases. Later on in the round and the rest of draft, it's all about the development. What you can do with the player as opposed to what he is.

In the top five, what he already has been is a lot of the evaluation. Primarily because of dollars.

We can afford to pay anyone we draft. We just can't afford to miss, because instead of measuring in wins over replacement, you could easily be measuring in losses.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=GTripp0012;663282]I'll say this: if the Redskins draft board ends up looking anything like mine, neither BPA nor draft for need nor a hybrid philosophy would result in taking a Quarterback.

And I think all teams should use a hybrid of the two. But it's worth pointing out that taking a quarterback at No. 4 probably isn't a hybrid of any sort, it's quite strictly BPA. It can't really be justified if one of the quarterbacks doesn't come out to #1 or #2 on the overall board. Which, by definition, we'd be picking the best player available.

The other thing that has to factor into the risk-reward matrix is the finance structure of the NFL draft. Prudence is dictated by the top ten picks in a way that the rest of the draft simply doesn't force one to return anything. When you pick in the 20-25 range, you can take a player who has a high bust potential if the athleticism can offer you a potential superstar, because he's easy to get away from if he sucks.

But taking a QB in the top five, the risk pretty much has to be non-existent. Maybe you shoot for Peyton Manning and end up with Eli. That's a miss, but it's financially excusable. But you can't afford to shoot for Peyton Manning and end up with Ryan Leaf. That's financially inexcusable.

As it still is with all positions that aren't quarterback. There's too many options at the top of the draft to settle for a mediocre prospect at a premium position in a sea of excellent talents. There's systematic risk in the NFL draft, even at the top, but most bust picks at the top five are just gianormous reaches as opposed to poor development cases. Later on in the round and the rest of draft, it's all about the development. What you can do with the player as opposed to what he is.

In the top five, what he already has been is a lot of the evaluation. Primarily because of dollars.

We can afford to pay anyone we draft. We just can't afford to miss, because instead of measuring in wins over replacement, you could easily be measuring in losses.[/quote]

I don't understand the financial argument. Maybe in a salary capped NFL your point would hold water, but there will be no cap this year. Snyder will not balk at paying a QB 4th-pick-money if that's what Shanahan wants. And there will be no consequences to doing so.

In an uncapped world, any money paid to the player this season (whether via bonus or via salary) would never hit a salary cap even if the cap comes back to the league.

He'll hand out the $25 million bonus to the rookie QB, grant him $5 - $7 million salaries per year and never look back. With the amount DS can afford to spend on salaries, and is willing to spend on salaries, the limiting factor when it comes to player acquisition will not be money, it will be picks on hand and roster spots.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Schneed10;663316]I don't understand the financial argument. Maybe in a salary capped NFL your point would hold water, but there will be no cap this year. Snyder will not balk at paying a QB 4th-pick-money if that's what Shanahan wants. And there will be no consequences to doing so.

In an uncapped world, any money paid to the player this season (whether via bonus or via salary) would never hit a salary cap even if the cap comes back to the league.

He'll hand out the $25 million bonus to the rookie QB, grant him $5 - $7 million salaries per year and never look back. With the amount DS can afford to spend on salaries, and is willing to spend on salaries, the limiting factor when it comes to player acquisition will not be money, it will be picks on hand and roster spots.[/quote]My argument really isn't about the signing, it's on the other end.

If a QB pick at No. 4 plays his way into a second contract, my point is moot.

The question I'm dealing with is: lets say that we draft a QB in 2010. We start with Campbell in 2010, and start, say 3-2, but injuries pile up and the team ends up distant in the division and we are 4-5. So we make the switch then and we finish 3-4 with the rookie QB. 7-9 finish. No discernible W/L production between the QBs.

But there might not (probably won't) be a 2011 season. If there's an agreement prior to 2012, we're talking about a half season of games by that point in their career. Now, I think contract is relevant. Because, at this point, how many years is the fourth overall pick given to make the playoffs before he is written off as an overdraft?

Hey, I fully understand that we don't (and shouldn't) have to make the decision on anyone's future before we make the draft choice. But with the magnitude of the contract, the point is that by the picks' first year as starter, it could be time for results or time to hit the road. And the pick has no real control over whether we play a football season in 2011 or not. But because of the magnitude of the contract, I do think it costs the player a year of development time if we don't play it.

So, yeah, I'd draft a quarterback this high if we had a team that could help him be successful right away without doing anything great. If he could solidify himself as the franchise PRIOR to the 2011 labor situation, then regardless of that outcome, I think we've filled an offensive hole. But I think that's asking a lot of a rookie. If there are as many questions about the quality of a QB draft pick a year from now as there are now, it's just going to be a cumbersome contract with no certainty.

Or put another way, if he's the best quarterback in the draft, take him. But if we're wrong on that, I'd rather flush 30 million down into the local sewer system tomorrow, and spend a high pick on a known issue. A top ten quarterback should be more than just a shot in the dark at greatness, it should actually be a great prospect.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

Something I firmly believe is that, if you're looking for the best overall quarterback in THIS draft, taking Bradford OR Clausen is the least creative way to get a ticket at the QB Roulette table. It's the teams who have no options at quarterback who have the most to gain from making a high pick on these players.

The reason that these players are rated above the others are because of a familiarity of NFL style route tree, and the ability to throw it. These are the most conventional prospects in the entire draft, as in the coaches have the least work to do with these two. If you have just nothing at the position, like Oakland, or like Carolina, these are the teams who could benefit the most. These guys are essentially need fillers...but unlike the free agent class, they are young, and have the potential to be probowlers.

If they get to greatness, they will get there perfectly conventionally. These are not special players, they are like very other first round pick before them. Just make sure to put a team around them, and both are accurate enough to pay dividends. Kind of like Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Culpepper, etc. Invest in them, and you'll get something. Maybe not a championship player, but something else.

If you're looking for a championship QB, it's way cheaper and more creative to go the route of a mid rounder, and offer then a spot on the depth chart that most other teams wouldn't. I know the numbers do say that most teams who make it all the way to the super bowl do it with first round quarterbacks, but that's the route we're currently on. It's not creative. It's expensive. And within a standard deviation from the mean projection, you're making a lateral move (2/3 chance of lateral move, 1/6 chance of notable improvement, 1/6 chance of large decline).

But the thing that would really eat at me...it shows no desire to take any steps towards becoming a championship team. It's just more of the same. Progress would have to wait while we window dress. I'm patient, but not [I]that[/I] patient.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

Imma stir this up a bit. Hear me out. I would like to trade back to the backhalf of the 1st round and pick up a 2nd rounder with our #4 pick. But even if we don't, say we do the most logical thing and draft an OLineman (I dunno who on here stated that Okung was the consensus overall #1 OT but ESPN has Anthony Davis rated higher, food for thought) So say we take Okung or Davis, whoever Shanny favors. Then we have our 2nd round pick. Some ppl have linked us with Colt McCoy. I do not know what it is about him, but i DISLIKE everything about him as an NFL QB. He is not built like an NFL QB and i dont think he can even grow into an NFL Frame. But unless someone has already taken a chance on him, Tim Tebow would still be available. I KNOW I KNOW, i sound like Dan Snyder. But Im not a Tebow fan, but i would have Tebow SHEETS before i could stomach cheering for McCoy (although if hes a redskin, then i gotta support him). So as you can derive, im not a fan of either, but support tebow over mccoy. My case is simple. We are keeping Jason Campbell for another year. So he can benefit from learning under him. Wont be forced to start too soon. Also, he will have a YEAR workin with the Shanahan's and LeFleur to work on his throwing motion. He is a proven winner. He is extremely competitive and would be a positive locker room influence (it would be funny if he had to get in Portis's face to put him in his place) Now The Shanahan's are offensive masterminds and in Tebow's 1st year, i'm sure they could give him a few packages to run during the season in spot duty. Just to get him on an NFL field (ala vick, cribbs, etc) to help him adjust to speed and competition. Another thing, Tebow is tough as hell, so if it takes more than 1 season to rebuild our OLine, we'd have a tough bastard back there that could handle it. And Shanahan also likes a QB that can move the pocket, and is agile. Id only question his accuracy

All this is pure speculation and in fun, but it displays my dislike for McCoy and changes from the boring clausen/bradford arguement that we've had 100 times over.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

As I said before Okung is the consensus #1 LT, I think it's McShay? that is the one man who doesn't make it unanimous. As for the idea with Tebow, make it Dan Lefevour, Kafka, or someone like that and I'm all for it. But not in the second round.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=GTripp0012;663350]Something I firmly believe is that, if you're looking for the best overall quarterback in THIS draft, taking Bradford OR Clausen is the least creative way to get a ticket at the QB Roulette table. It's the teams who have no options at quarterback who have the most to gain from making a high pick on these players.

The reason that these players are rated above the others are because of a familiarity of NFL style route tree, and the ability to throw it. These are the most conventional prospects in the entire draft, as in the coaches have the least work to do with these two. If you have just nothing at the position, like Oakland, or like Carolina, these are the teams who could benefit the most. These guys are essentially need fillers...but unlike the free agent class, they are young, and have the potential to be probowlers.

If they get to greatness, they will get there perfectly conventionally. These are not special players, they are like very other first round pick before them. Just make sure to put a team around them, and both are accurate enough to pay dividends. Kind of like Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Culpepper, etc. Invest in them, and you'll get something. Maybe not a championship player, but something else.

If you're looking for a championship QB, it's way cheaper and more creative to go the route of a mid rounder, and offer then a spot on the depth chart that most other teams wouldn't. I know the numbers do say that most teams who make it all the way to the super bowl do it with first round quarterbacks, but that's the route we're currently on. It's not creative. It's expensive. And within a standard deviation from the mean projection, you're making a lateral move (2/3 chance of lateral move, 1/6 chance of notable improvement, 1/6 chance of large decline).

But the thing that would really eat at me...it shows no desire to take any steps towards becoming a championship team. It's just more of the same. Progress would have to wait while we window dress. I'm patient, but not [I]that[/I] patient.[/quote]Paralysis by over-analysis.

Please, no offense intended, but who cares about deviations and mean projections. We've got the 4th overall pick, it's not something we have very often, nor want to have very often. If Shanahan/Allen believe one or both is a franchise caliber QB, they damn well better get that guy at #4. If the franchise QB is gone, or they have neither rated as such, build the OL and get a QB later. It's pretty simple.

I'm a Clausen guy, he's franchise level IMO. Bradford, no. Money isn't an issue with an uncapped season. Will we have a top 5-10 pick next year, doubtful unless we're decimated by injury. So we won't have the chance to get a Locker or Luck in 2011.

EDIT: If the decision is not to go QB, I'm all for a trade down to pick up BPA at position of need (and we've got a few of those; T, G, C, QB, RB, LB, FS, and NT if we go to a base 3-4)

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;663353]Paralysis by over-analysis.

Please, no offense intended, but who cares about deviations and mean projections. We've got the 4th overall pick, it's not something we have very often, nor want to have very often.[B] If Shanahan/Allen believe one or both is a franchise caliber QB,[/B] they damn well better get that guy at #4. If the franchise QB is gone, or they have neither rated as such, build the OL and get a QB later. It's pretty simple.

I'm a Clausen guy, he's franchise level IMO. Bradford, no. Money isn't an issue with an uncapped season. Will we have a top 5-10 pick next year, doubtful unless we're decimated by injury. So we won't have the chance to get a Locker or Luck in 2011.

EDIT: If the decision is not to go QB, I'm all for a trade down to pick up either more BPA at position of need (and we've got a few of those; T, G, C, QB, RB, LB, FS, and NT if we go to a base 3-4)[/quote]

That's what it all comes down to isn't it? That and their feeling about JC. I wonder if they've given any thought to draft and trade? Too soon for that I guess.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;663353]Paralysis by over-analysis.

Please, no offense intended, but who cares about deviations and mean projections. We've got the 4th overall pick, it's not something we have very often, nor want to have very often. If Shanahan/Allen believe one or both is a franchise caliber QB, they damn well better get that guy at #4. If the franchise QB is gone, or they have neither rated as such, build the OL and get a QB later. It's pretty simple.

I'm a Clausen guy, he's franchise level IMO. Bradford, no. Money isn't an issue with an uncapped season. Will we have a top 5-10 pick next year, doubtful unless we're decimated by injury. So we won't have the chance to get a Locker or Luck in 2011.

EDIT: If the decision is not to go QB, I'm all for a trade down to pick up BPA at position of need (and we've got a few of those; T, G, C, QB, RB, LB, FS, and NT if we go to a base 3-4)[/quote]But what if they believe the current guy is a franchise guy AND that Clausen is also a franchise guy. Then what is the proper course of action if Clausen slips to No. 4?

And if we have the No. 4 pick in a year where the Quarterbacks are mid-round guys...tough crap, I guess. Go get something useful with the pick. You're probably right when you say we won't be picking top five again, but the NFL Draft appears to have slowed if not stopped producing elite NFL quarterbacks. I think we're in an age where you pretty much have to make one (from raw tools).

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=53Fan;663352]As I said before Okung is the consensus #1 LT, I think it's McShay? that is the one man who doesn't make it unanimous. As for the idea with Tebow, make it Dan Lefevour, Kafka, or someone like that and I'm all for it. But not in the second round.[/quote]

lol i dont think you understand. the whole fake argument of my point was SO we could draft Tebow. All you basically did was agree that we should take an LT in the 1st round haha. I dont think i meant the pick seriously but there are some good points in taking him.

An additional point/bonus to taking Tebow, with all the shitty seasons we've been having since 1990, this year we could USE god on our side LMAO

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;663174]Hey, I did watch it, but they had all 11 coaches on in a half hour, there want much philosophy talked about. The TE coach interview was [paraphrased] its great to coach 2 top tight ends like cooley and davis right? [B] Yes I have watched cooley a lot because tony gonzalez would always watch him[/B]. Cool to know but not very substantive. They all were one to two sentence clips. I think haslett and shanahan said more but still nothing substantive.[/quote]
now that's a compliment if I've ever seen one

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=53Fan;663221]2000-2010 SB QB's with round selected in nfl draft:

2000
W- K.Warner-UDFA---L-S.McNair-1
2001
W-T.Dilfer-1---L-K.Collins-1
2002
W-T.Brady-6---L-K.Warner-UDFA
2003
W-B.Johnson-9---L-R.Gannon-4
2004
W-T. Brady-6---L-J.Delhomme-UDFA
2005
W-T. Brady-6---L-D.McNabb-1
2006
W-B.Roethlisberger-1---L-M.Hasslebeck-6
2007
W-P.Manning-1---L-R.Grossman-1
2008
W-E.Manning-1---L-T.Brady-6
2009
W-B.Roethlisberger-1---K.Warner-UDFA
2010
W-D.Brees-2---L-P.Manning-1

Out of the last 11 SB's, 6 times the winning QB was not drafted in the first round.[/quote]
and in 8 there was a 1st round QB in the game

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=GTripp0012;663224]
...

When you consider that our needs between the positions are certainly NOT equal, the confidence level in the QB has to be extremely high to justify the pick. There are people here who believe Clausen is the best QB, and those who believe Bradford is the best. The point is, if it's not really, really, REALLY obvious to the front office who the best of the two is, (and if it is, that's a very easy BPA pick), then this is without a doubt the wrong course of action.[/quote]
good perspective Tripp, at least if it's that clear cut

it also says that you can probably pick up a decent tackle nearly every year I think though

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Schneed10;663236]

But still, sack up and put the chips on the table, I'm tired of being a fringe playoff team every single year. Nothing transforms your franchise like an elite QB.[/quote]
another great post itt

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

gtripp, if your running the show, who do YOU draft?

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=tryfuhl;663393]and in 8 there was a 1st round QB in the game[/quote]

And of the 22 QB's involved in the 11 games, 12 times the QB wasn't drafted in the first round. I'm not sure how much any of this matters, not much probably, but I think it shows you don't have to draft a QB in the first round to go, or even win the Super Bowl.

To tell you the truth I'm just enjoying the discussion. Either QB could turn out to be busts or maybe just one...OR they could turn out to be the Manning/Brady combo of the next generation. I like Bradford, others such as Sammy like Clausen. Sammy may be right. And just as Schneed said he wouldn't be upset if we took Okung, I wouldn't be upset with one of the QB's, especially Bradford. :)

I think my argument for Okung is sound, but I agree with SmootSmack who originally got this whole thing going by saying we shouldn't reach for a LT just for the sake of taking one. It's JMO that we need a LT more than we need a QB to win at this point in time. That combined with the frustration of trying to fix our o-line anyway possible except drafting them high puts me on the side of drafting o-line first.

Last year I wanted Alex Mack and thought we could trade down, pick up another pick, and have our replacement for Rabach. Now I'm certainly not disappointed with Orakpo. I love the guy and I'm glad we have him, but we still haven't REALLY addressed the Center position yet and another year has gone by. Still....not getting the guy you want is not the end of the world and in some cases it works out better that you didn't. :)

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=PHazard;663390]lol i dont think you understand. the whole fake argument of my point was SO we could draft Tebow. All you basically did was agree that we should take an LT in the 1st round haha. I dont think i meant the pick seriously but there are some good points in taking him.

An additional point/bonus to taking Tebow, with all the shitty seasons we've been having since 1990, [B]this year we could USE god on our side[/B] LMAO[/quote]

You'll get no argument from me there. LOL. But with so many needs and the chance to get another good tackle, center, or RB in the second, I sure don't want to use it on Tebow. We have enough TE's. :)

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=GTripp0012;663358]But what if they believe the current guy is a franchise guy AND that Clausen is also a franchise guy. Then what is the proper course of action if Clausen slips to No. 4?

And if we have the No. 4 pick in a year where the Quarterbacks are mid-round guys...tough crap, I guess. Go get something useful with the pick. You're probably right when you say we won't be picking top five again, but the NFL Draft appears to have slowed if not stopped producing elite NFL quarterbacks. I think we're in an age where you pretty much have to make one (from raw tools).[/quote]If the braintrust believes Campbell is a franchise guy they should have their heads examined. :)

That being said, if they feel he's a franchise guy, sign him to a long term deal and be done with it, then draft the LT. If they don't feel either Clausen/Bradford is a franchise guy, but rather mid-rounders, then you're absolutely right...tough crap, get something useful (LT).

I disagree about the draft producing elite QBs, we may have had a lull for a few years but I think Clausen, Luck, possibly Locker have the tools to be elite QBs. I think the prevalence of the spread offense in college has something to do with it too.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;663445][B]If the braintrust believes Campbell is a franchise guy they should have their heads examined[/B]. :)

That being said, if they feel he's a franchise guy, sign him to a long term deal and be done with it, then draft the LT. If they don't feel either Clausen/Bradford is a franchise guy, but rather mid-rounders, then you're absolutely right...tough crap, get something useful (LT).

I disagree about the draft producing elite QBs, we may have had a lull for a few years but I think Clausen, Luck, possibly Locker have the tools to be elite QBs. I think the prevalence of the spread offense in college has something to do with it too.[/quote]

I don't think anyone thinks that Campbell is a franchise QB, I mean he could prove us wrong, but so far he's just a serviceable QB that could allow us to focus on the offensive line in the first round, rather than a QB. I think my opinion of getting a first-round QB would be different if we had Collins at QB right now or some other old veteran.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;663445]I disagree about the draft producing elite QBs, we may have had a lull for a few years but I think Clausen, Luck, possibly Locker have the tools to be elite QBs. I think the prevalence of the spread offense in college has something to do with it too.[/quote]I think the spread has a lot to do with it. There are hundreds of competent college QBs out there but NFL teams, on the whole, want to take these guys to the next level and make them do something completely foreign. That's going to eliminate a lot of potentially great players. And so there are like 10 colleges who, in any given year, might send a quarterback to the NFL draft who gets taken highly.

And because of the market conditions (spread quarterbacks undervalued, or not valued at all), guys are coming out earlier and earlier, which is of course, a negative indicator of potential. But it's worth a lot of cash, because the guys who are waiting around are getting picked apart as prospects.

And so the NFL draft isn't producing anymore Mannings, or Rivers', or Carson Palmers anymore...I think the polished, can't miss quarterback prospect is probably a thing of the past. Maybe once every three years, you'll get a Matt Ryan. Christian Ponder could be that guy next year, as they are incredibly similar. And I like Jacory Harris in a year or two.

But I think: if you're going to have to culture a successful environment anyway, why spend the top five pick on a quarterback? Why inflate the price of an asset beyond what it's actually worth--if you're the one going to be paying the bill anyway?

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Ruhskins;663449]I don't think anyone thinks that Campbell is a franchise QB, I mean he could prove us wrong, but so far he's just a serviceable QB that could allow us to focus on the offensive line in the first round, rather than a QB. I think my opinion of getting a first-round QB would be different if we had Collins at QB right now or some other old veteran.[/quote]Then again, if everyone shared my definition of franchise QB (and there's no reason anyone else should, except for clarity), I think everyone would agree that Jason Campbell is a franchise QB.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

Speaking of Campbell, here's a good take on the [URL="http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/news/story?id=4911628"]QB situation by Matt Williamson[/URL] from Scouts, Inc.

[B]Should the Redskins keep Jason Campbell?[/B]

For the most part, the answer is yes. I would tender him the highest offer with every intention of making him new coach Mike Shanahan's next quarterback project. But I would also listen to offers and would do diligent scouting on Sam Bradford and Jimmy Clausen in case an offer for Campbell was too good to pass up. I would prefer to add a franchise-caliber left tackle with that fourth overall draft pick, because I think the Redskins can get where they want to go with Campbell. The catch: They need to be patient with him and surround him with a vastly improved running game and offensive line. Campbell has gone through offensive system after offensive system at a remarkable rate, but he still shows glimpses of being a very solid NFL starting quarterback.

With Shanahan on board, Campbell finally would be fortunate enough to have some offensive stability in terms of the system, expectations and play-calling on a year-to-year basis. For once he wouldn't have to pick up a new language every offseason. Physically, Campbell has what it takes. He can move well enough to execute Shanahan's scheme, has a big strong arm to drive the ball down the field and is accurate enough. The tools are there, and he just had his best year as a starter. I contend that he could use a real confidence boost and some of the responsibility off his plate; he was simply asked to do way too much last year as nearly every aspect of the Redskins' offense crumbled around him. He was also sacked 43 times and was constantly under siege. But the beauty of sticking with Campbell is that the Redskins could then use the resources on building a quick zone-blocking offensive line and finding a ball carrier they can trust. Shanahan does have an impressive history of getting first-round production from mid-round running backs. I can live with the receiving corps that is in place and the defense.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=GTripp0012;663220]There's no way you can simply count on getting a QB in the middle rounds to be your franchise player eventually. You would take a QB first to be the back-up, and only to play if he performed above expectation or the starter got hurt.[/quote]


Not talking specifically about the Skins....

I don't think that teams with a decent starting QB in place at [I][B]need[/B][/I] to draft their QB top 5-10-15. (or teams with QB guru's).
I think the safer way to find a QB is to draft one after the 1st round every year; (plenty of team do this and try to groom a QB) or to nab a QB via FA or trade after the team is built.
Finding a QB via draft imo is a crap shoot no matter where you draft.
You just can't know.
Imo most QBs that are draft worthy are different by large %.
QBs like Heath Shuler fail unknown cast-offs like Kurt Warner succeed.
Because the QB is such a crap shoot taking one with a top pick 5 scares the heck out of me.
The lower you draft your QB the less investment there is and therefore more objective decisions can be made and if the QB isn't picking up the system (see JaMarcus Russell). Teams aren't worried about sunken cost because there isn't any and you have a good QB starting and you know you're gonna bring in another QB next year anyway.

I wish we would just drop the 'franchise' label.

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;663445]I disagree about the draft producing elite QBs, we may have had a lull for a few years but I think Clausen, Luck, possibly Locker have the tools to be elite QBs. I think the prevalence of the spread offense in college has something to do with it too.[/quote]

I think there is no such thing as an elite QB until they become one.
Imo there is no such thing as an eilte QB prospect independent of the team and situation around them.

I think the physical differences between most NFL caliber QB prospect is mere %.

I think in a raw skills competition like the combine or an arm strength throwing/accuracy/ touch contest some will do better in different areas but at the end of the day most will be in the same ballpark. And even the ones the are the tops in every category like Shuler or Leaf still aren't locks to become good QBs much less elite.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Paintrain;663071]Without picking sides in the Bradford/Clausen vs. Okung at #4 pick, it bugs me when I see people say to 'just pick up a QB in the mid rounds' like that's a recipe for success in the league.. Doing a little research (very little) it's pretty clear that it's not.. Of the playoff teams the past 5 years, the QB breakdown is (non first round QB in parenthesis):

2009, 7-12 playoff QB were first round picks (Brees, Warner, Brady, Romo, Favre)
2008, 9-12 playoff QB were first round picks (Warner, T. Jackson, Delhomme)
2007, 5-12 playoff QB were first round picks (Favre, T. Collins, Brady, Garrard, Romo, Garcia, Hasselbeck)
2006, 7-12 playoff QB were first round picks (Brady, Brees, Romo, Hasselbeck, T. Green)
2005, 6-12 playoff QB were first round picks (Brady, Plummer, Brunell, Hasselbeck, Garcia, Delhomme)

So nearly 60% of the playoff QB over the past 5 years have been 1st round picks. The exceptions have been the greatest 6th round pick in league history (Brady) 4 undrafted FA (Romo, Delhomme, Garcia, Warner)-including perhaps one of the most unlikely stories of all time in Warner. Three second round picks (Brees, Favre & Jackson) and 5 late round picks who eventually became something after playing behind established QB for years (Garrard, T. Green, Collins, Brunell, Hasselbeck).

So unless we're hoping for another miracle (Brady, Warner, Romo, Delhomme) or a slightly undervalued gem (Favre, Brees) or are hoping to find an undiscovered star (Hasselbeck, etc) then 'picking up a QB in the mid rounds' is likely not going to yield us anything beyond mediocre football in the future.[/quote]

You're famous "Paint Rain"!

The folks at TheWarpath.net, for example, have an interesting conversation going about the potential for drafting a successful QB in the later rounds. Someone posting there as Paintrain (a name that I found intriguing when I was reading it as "paint rain," and a bit less so as "pain train," which I'm guessing it actually is) has broken down the playoff QBs from the last five years, and his numbers seem revealing (the names in parentheses are that year's non-first-round QBs):

[url=http://blog.redskins.com/2010/02/16/a-whole-mess-of-links/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter]A Whole Mess Of Links, Many Dealing With Quarterbacks[/url]

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

Yo we need a first round qb, no question. To bank on finding one in the late round/free agency is ludacris. To find a qb in the late rounds that can win is just dumb luck, which we cannot rely on. If someone thinks that qb can win they will take him early. We can't just hope to luck out on some guy that the other teams keep passing on. The QB is too important, and we have to get it while we have the opportunity to. If we get another position now, it might be too late to get a qb next year if we do better. QB is the one position that we cannot pass up if we have a guy to get, no matter what.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Ruhskins;663458]Speaking of Campbell, here's a good take on the [URL="http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/news/story?id=4911628"]QB situation by Matt Williamson[/URL] from Scouts, Inc.

[B]Should the Redskins keep Jason Campbell?[/B]

For the most part, the answer is yes. I would tender him the highest offer with every intention of making him new coach Mike Shanahan's next quarterback project. But I would also listen to offers and would do diligent scouting on Sam Bradford and Jimmy Clausen in case an offer for Campbell was too good to pass up. I would prefer to add a franchise-caliber left tackle with that fourth overall draft pick, because I think the Redskins can get where they want to go with Campbell. The catch: They need to be patient with him and surround him with a vastly improved running game and offensive line. Campbell has gone through offensive system after offensive system at a remarkable rate, but he still shows glimpses of being a very solid NFL starting quarterback.

With Shanahan on board, Campbell finally would be fortunate enough to have some offensive stability in terms of the system, expectations and play-calling on a year-to-year basis. For once he wouldn't have to pick up a new language every offseason. Physically, Campbell has what it takes. He can move well enough to execute Shanahan's scheme, has a big strong arm to drive the ball down the field and is accurate enough. The tools are there, and he just had his best year as a starter. I contend that he could use a real confidence boost and some of the responsibility off his plate; he was simply asked to do way too much last year as nearly every aspect of the Redskins' offense crumbled around him. He was also sacked 43 times and was constantly under siege. But the beauty of sticking with Campbell is that the Redskins could then use the resources on building a quick zone-blocking offensive line and finding a ball carrier they can trust. Shanahan does have an impressive history of getting first-round production from mid-round running backs. I can live with the receiving corps that is in place and the defense.[/quote]

If Campbell wants to truly take the next step he'll need to do two things

1. Work on his deep ball accuracy: Despite his strong arm Jason is horrible when it comes to throwing the deep ball.

2. Reading defenses better: From what I've seen and heard Jason is only average in this category. If he wants to stay around he'll need to do a better job of looking off safeties and not staring down receivers as well as making proper pre-snap reads.

It might only be two bullet points but they're easily two of the most important aspects of being an NFL QB.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=GTripp0012;663349]My argument really isn't about the signing, it's on the other end.

If a QB pick at No. 4 plays his way into a second contract, my point is moot.

The question I'm dealing with is: lets say that we draft a QB in 2010. We start with Campbell in 2010, and start, say 3-2, but injuries pile up and the team ends up distant in the division and we are 4-5. So we make the switch then and we finish 3-4 with the rookie QB. 7-9 finish. No discernible W/L production between the QBs.

But there might not (probably won't) be a 2011 season. If there's an agreement prior to 2012, we're talking about a half season of games by that point in their career. Now, I think contract is relevant. Because, at this point, how many years is the fourth overall pick given to make the playoffs before he is written off as an overdraft?

Hey, I fully understand that we don't (and shouldn't) have to make the decision on anyone's future before we make the draft choice. But with the magnitude of the contract, the point is that by the picks' first year as starter, it could be time for results or time to hit the road. And the pick has no real control over whether we play a football season in 2011 or not. But because of the magnitude of the contract, I do think it costs the player a year of development time if we don't play it.

So, yeah, I'd draft a quarterback this high if we had a team that could help him be successful right away without doing anything great. If he could solidify himself as the franchise PRIOR to the 2011 labor situation, then regardless of that outcome, I think we've filled an offensive hole. But I think that's asking a lot of a rookie. If there are as many questions about the quality of a QB draft pick a year from now as there are now, it's just going to be a cumbersome contract with no certainty.

Or put another way, if he's the best quarterback in the draft, take him. But if we're wrong on that, I'd rather flush 30 million down into the local sewer system tomorrow, and spend a high pick on a known issue. A top ten quarterback should be more than just a shot in the dark at greatness, it should actually be a great prospect.[/quote]

OK I've read this over a couple times now and it's still not making a lick of sense to me. The contract structure and salary paid to the player has no bearing, either now or down the road. Whether you pick a LT or a QB at 4 overall, you're still talking about a big contract. But there's no [I]contract[/I] risk with either player. If the QB fails and we have to cut bait, there will be no signing bonus acceleration because any bonus would have been paid to him in an uncapped year and thus not relevant under a capped year, if there ever is one again.

In fact, the uncapped year is the best time to dole out large bonuses.

In an uncapped world like baseball, you have contract risk with signing players to big contracts for long terms. But this rookie QB would not have a guaranteed contract like a Vernon Wells does.

Cap consequences are irrelevant, and cash consequences are not a concern with Dan Snyder in charge.

The risk you run with a QB is not financial in any way. It is only that you'll miss on the player. But higher risk, higher reward. An LT might pan out more often, but I don't really care to go 8-8.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;663476]If Campbell wants to truly take the next step he'll need to do two things

1. Work on his deep ball accuracy: Despite his strong arm Jason is horrible when it comes to throwing the deep ball.
[/quote]

Agreed that he needs to i[I]mprove[/I] on the deep ball.

He needs to work on his deep ball accuracy on the go route/9 route.

There are some factors from a coaching stand point that will help JC improve also:

-better pass protection
o will help because he'll be more confident in the pocket
o there will be more chances to throw deep

-the receivers maintaining a more consistent 5 yard cushion from the sideline

-better running game to set-up play action

[quote]2. Reading defenses better: From what I've seen and heard Jason is only average in this category. If he wants to stay around he'll need to do a better job of looking off safeties and not staring down receivers as well as making proper pre-snap reads.[/quote]

Gameplan and coaching will help him a great deal in this category.

Being able to [B][I]dictate[/I][/B] the coverages any QB faces greatly improves there success; and historically this something that Mike Shanahan has done in the past and i'm sure Mike has passed some of his tips along to his Kyle.

Further there will be huge difference in our current coaching staff's level of knowledge when it some to predicting and attack defenses then the previous on the job training offensive staff displayed.

There is no doubt in my mind that Kyle/LeFleur and Mike S. will have JC better prepared to read and attack any defenses this year.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=30gut;663461]Not talking specifically about the Skins....

I don't think that teams with a decent starting QB in place at [I][B]need[/B][/I] to draft their QB top 5-10-15. (or teams with QB guru's).
I think the safer way to find a QB is to draft one after the 1st round every year; (plenty of team do this and try to groom a QB) or to nab a QB via FA or trade after the team is built.
Finding a QB via draft imo is a crap shoot no matter where you draft.
You just can't know.
Imo most QBs that are draft worthy are different by large %.
QBs like Heath Shuler fail unknown cast-offs like Kurt Warner succeed.
Because the QB is such a crap shoot taking one with a top pick 5 scares the heck out of me.
[B]The lower you draft your QB the less investment there is and therefore more objective decisions can be made and if the QB isn't picking up the system (see JaMarcus Russell). Teams aren't worried about sunken cost because there isn't any and you have a good QB starting and you know you're gonna bring in another QB next year anyway.[/B]

I wish we would just drop the 'franchise' label.



I think there is no such thing as an elite QB until they become one.
Imo there is no such thing as an eilte QB prospect independent of the team and situation around them.

I think the physical differences between most NFL caliber QB prospect is mere %.

I think in a raw skills competition like the combine or an arm strength throwing/accuracy/ touch contest some will do better in different areas but at the end of the day most will be in the same ballpark. And even the ones the are the tops in every category like Shuler or Leaf still aren't locks to become good QBs much less elite.[/quote]

Good points 30Gut. I think the bolded part is why it's been said that drafting a QB high who doesn't work out can set a franchise back 3-5 years. Teams spend so much time trying to justify the pick instead of cutting their losses and moving on. Not to mention they've probably missed out on a quality player at another position.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=30gut;663516]Agreed that he needs to i[I]mprove[/I] on the deep ball.

He needs to work on his deep ball accuracy on the go route/9 route.

There are some factors from a coaching stand point that will help JC improve also:

-better pass protection
o will help because he'll be more confident in the pocket
o there will be more chances to throw deep

-the receivers maintaining a more consistent 5 yard cushion from the sideline

-better running game to set-up play action



Gameplan and coaching will help him a great deal in this category.

Being able to [B][I]dictate[/I][/B] the coverages any QB faces greatly improves there success; and historically this something that Mike Shanahan has done in the past and i'm sure Mike has passed some of his tips along to his Kyle.

Further there will be huge difference in our current coaching staff's level of knowledge when it some to predicting and attack defenses then the previous on the job training offensive staff displayed.

There is no doubt in my mind that Kyle/LeFleur and Mike S. will have JC better prepared to read and attack any defenses this year.[/quote]

Very good points.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=30gut;663461]I think there is no such thing as an elite QB until they become one.[/quote]Of course.

[quote]Imo there is no such thing as an eilte QB prospect independent of the team and situation around them.[/quote]An elite QB prospects early career success is of course dependent on the team around him. However, even with "pieces missing" the elite QB prospect makes other around him better within 2-3 years.

[quote]I think the physical differences between most NFL caliber QB prospect is mere %.[/quote]The physical differences in QBs is far more vast than a mere tenth of a second in the 40-time or 10lbs in a bench press. You've got their release, velocity, accuracy, accuracy on the move, foot speed, foot quickness, etc. Most importantly is the mental and leadership aspect of a QB prospect, what type of competition has the prospect played in college, what type of system, all important factors to consider.

[quote]And even the ones the are the tops in every category like Shuler or Leaf still aren't locks to become good QBs much less elite.[/quote]Shuler and Leaf were tops physically, but I believe both had question marks about their mental approach to the game.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Schneed10;663507]OK I've read this over a couple times now and it's still not making a lick of sense to me. The contract structure and salary paid to the player has no bearing, either now or down the road. Whether you pick a LT or a QB at 4 overall, you're still talking about a big contract. But there's no [I]contract[/I] risk with either player. If the QB fails and we have to cut bait, there will be no signing bonus acceleration because any bonus would have been paid to him in an uncapped year and thus not relevant under a capped year, if there ever is one again.

In fact, the uncapped year is the best time to dole out large bonuses.

In an uncapped world like baseball, you have contract risk with signing players to big contracts for long terms. But this rookie QB would not have a guaranteed contract like a Vernon Wells does.

Cap consequences are irrelevant, and cash consequences are not a concern with Dan Snyder in charge.

The risk you run with a QB is not financial in any way. It is only that you'll miss on the player. But higher risk, higher reward. An LT might pan out more often, but I don't really care to go 8-8.[/quote]Well, there are assumptions here about a future CBA that we simply can't really prepare for: if 24 owners see nothing wrong with punishing the Redskins for spending like they are the only team in the league, then they can impose whatever consequences for large contracts they want to against us.

With that said, I don't believe the agreement that they will eventually come to with the players association in 2012 is going to include a salary cap. Maybe some form of a luxury tax, which wouldn't be an issue for this franchise.

The crux of my argument, and it was poorly stated, was: even though any signing bonus we would pay to the 4th overall pick becomes a sunk cost at the point it is spent, we can't assume that the team would act rationally in the face of facing a potential sunk cost. I think it's a very safe assumption that, if the pick is poor, we will [B]lose[/B] games over what we would have had if we had just never used the pick at all. (This, is of course, if we assume the level of the replacement player to be equal to Jason Campbell).

Basically, I should have just stated that I am rejecting the premise it's just money and a pick that we would be spending on the high-volatility selection. If the selection was poor for any reason, either poor player evaluation or poor evaluation of environment conditions, it's not just a pick or money that's sunk (in a rational world, it would be), it's also many football games.

The practical figure of guaranteed money for a quarterback is far beyond what the actual figure is. If the actual figure is $25 million, his salaries for three or four years are also guaranteed. If you look at Russell, it's hard to see any other rational move for the Raiders than to cut ties with him. But the Raiders are going to throw $13 million more at the problem, plus the salary of a new quarterback coach, to not have to eat the $45 million or whatever they've already sunk into one of the worst QB prospects of the decade.

Without getting into all the reasons that the Redskins have a greater chance of succeeding with a QB at No. 4 overall this year than the Raiders had at No. 1 in 2007 (a very poor QB draft to this point), I think the above very clearly is a case of contract risk. Large contracts and irrational decision making have gone together since the beginning of the free agency era. There's no real reason to suggest that the new brain trust is above that influence.

But, of course, if you guess right on a great quarterback, then the contract is, in some ways, a value. But the problem is that you're guessing at all. You really do have to know, to justify the pick, and a No. 1 or No. 2 ranking on the big board constitutes knowledge (as opposed to hope) to me.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

I like Jevon Snead as my 3rd choice of a QB if we don't pick up Bradford or Clausen. Snead arm is a good good canon and plays sorta like a Bret Favre in college( just alot less accurate).

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;663526]An elite QB prospects early career success is of course dependent on the team around him. However, even with "pieces missing" the elite QB prospect makes other around him better within 2-3 years.[/quote]I think this is a very well presented, concise, intuitive theory. Is there a method I could use to test this? Is this relevant to draft position, or pre-draft perception of the prospect in any way?

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=GTripp0012;663542]Well, there are assumptions here about a future CBA that we simply can't really prepare for: if 24 owners see nothing wrong with punishing the Redskins for spending like they are the only team in the league, then they can impose whatever consequences for large contracts they want to against us.

With that said, I don't believe the agreement that they will eventually come to with the players association in 2012 is going to include a salary cap. Maybe some form of a luxury tax, which wouldn't be an issue for this franchise.

The crux of my argument, and it was poorly stated, was: even though any signing bonus we would pay to the 4th overall pick becomes a sunk cost at the point it is spent, we can't assume that the team would act rationally in the face of facing a potential sunk cost. I think it's a very safe assumption that, if the pick is poor, we will [B]lose[/B] games over what we would have had if we had just never used the pick at all. (This, is of course, if we assume the level of the replacement player to be equal to Jason Campbell).

Basically, I should have just stated that I am rejecting the premise it's just money and a pick that we would be spending on the high-volatility selection. If the selection was poor for any reason, either poor player evaluation or poor evaluation of environment conditions, it's not just a pick or money that's sunk (in a rational world, it would be), it's also many football games.

The practical figure of guaranteed money for a quarterback is far beyond what the actual figure is. If the actual figure is $25 million, his salaries for three or four years are also guaranteed. If you look at Russell, it's hard to see any other rational move for the Raiders than to cut ties with him. But the Raiders are going to throw $13 million more at the problem, plus the salary of a new quarterback coach, to not have to eat the $45 million or whatever they've already sunk into one of the worst QB prospects of the decade.

Without getting into all the reasons that the Redskins have a greater chance of succeeding with a QB at No. 4 overall this year than the Raiders had at No. 1 in 2007 (a very poor QB draft to this point), I think the above very clearly is a case of contract risk. Large contracts and irrational decision making have gone together since the beginning of the free agency era. There's no real reason to suggest that the new brain trust is above that influence.

But, of course, if you guess right on a great quarterback, then the contract is, in some ways, a value. But the problem is that you're guessing at all. You really do have to know, to justify the pick, and a No. 1 or No. 2 ranking on the big board constitutes knowledge (as opposed to hope) to me.[/quote]

Getting down to it, you're basically talking about risk on the player itself, not the contract or the money. There is no such thing as contract "value" in this uncapped era, and I don't buy that a front office's decision making would be any different for a QB investment vs a LT investment; if the QB is guaranteed the first 3 or 4 years of salary, so is the LT. And it's putting the cart way before the horse to concern ourselves about potential contract decisions over a draft selection we haven't even picked yet. At some point, we reach the point of diminishing returns with discussing this minutae, and as one other person said, paralysis by analysis.

It's really not much more complicated than this: Okung is safer, but a QB has a higher ceiling in terms of the potential impact on future win/loss record. Money isn't an issue, they'll both command a large amount, and neither poses any salary cap impact.

For me, I'll get behind whatever Shanahan decides. If he sees that elite QB prospect and he gets him, I can never fault someone for daring to be great. If he doesn't see said prospect and takes Okung, I'll be comfortable knowing we just filled one of the most important positions on the field for years to come.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=GTripp0012;663552]I think this is a very well presented, concise, intuitive theory. Is there a method I could use to test this? Is this relevant to draft position, or pre-draft perception of the prospect in any way?[/quote]

Your tendency to want to quantify the unquantifiable is tiring at times, GTripp.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Schneed10;663560]Getting down to it, you're basically talking about risk on the player itself, not the contract or the money. There is no such thing as contract "value" in this uncapped era, and I don't buy that a front office's decision making would be any different for a QB investment vs a LT investment; if the QB is guaranteed the first 3 or 4 years of salary, so is the LT. And it's putting the cart way before the horse to concern ourselves about potential contract decisions over a draft selection we haven't even picked yet. At some point, we reach the point of diminishing returns with discussing this minutae, and as one other person said, paralysis by analysis.

It's really not much more complicated than this: Okung is safer, but a QB has a higher ceiling in terms of the potential impact on future win/loss record. Money isn't an issue, they'll both command a large amount, and neither poses any salary cap impact.

For me, I'll get behind whatever Shanahan decides. If he sees that elite QB prospect and he gets him, I can never fault someone for daring to be great. If he doesn't see said prospect and takes Okung, I'll be comfortable knowing we just filled one of the most important positions on the field for years to come.[/quote]This has nothing to do with I was just saying before (and shouldn't be considered an extension to the argument), but I don't actually believe that either of the quarterback prospects have a metaphorical high ceiling as players. I think there's a scheme evaluation that will occur with Shanahan's system where he will look at all the available players, and ask which ones can execute the bread and butter of his route tree the very best. And if the answer is either Clausen or Bradford, I think he will take them at No. 4.

But a scheme evaluation is not a player evaluation. It's probably a lot more complicated. I don't know, I've never really tried to do one. Player evaluation wise, these aren't high ceiling prospects. I think I have a very good (if not complete) idea of who these two guys are. And to reach towards that franchise quarterback level, I think you need to be willing to scale a playbook away from the things that Clausen and Bradford struggle with. With Bradford, that may be harder because I don't think the things he struggles with are readily apparent (different than saying they do not exist -- a lot different). If you create a QB friendly system for them, I think either of these guys is capable of reaching their top level potential.

Of course, you could do the same thing for Chad Pennington or Jason Campbell or Dan Lefevour. I fully support Mike Shanahan's ability to evaluate all possible options in this draft...but the point comes when you make so many concessions in your offense to try to create a great player out of a top prospect, that you wonder exactly why these are the top prospects in the draft.

Maybe we think about it the wrong way.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

Does anyone else get the feeling that if GTripp were the General Manager of the Skins we would always miss the 15 minute deadline to submit our pick?

"No! I'm not ready yet. I still have to run a regression analysis on the running backs based on who wanted to be Han Solo and who wanted to be Luke Skywalker for Halloween in 4th grade and then measure that against the weighted average of mixed tapes made for their girlfriend in 10th grade per Wide Receiver. I need more time!!!!"

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=SmootSmack;663567]Does anyone else get the feeling that if GTripp were the General Manager of the Skins we would always miss the 15 minute deadline to submit our pick?

"No! I'm not ready yet. I still have to run a regression analysis on the running backs based on who wanted to be Han Solo and who wanted to be Luke Skywalker for Halloween in 4th grade and then measure that against the weighted average of mixed tapes made for their girlfriend in 10th grade per Wide Receiver. I need more time!!!!"[/quote]That's pretty much why the Vikings fired me.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=GTripp0012;663579]That's pretty much why the Vikings fired me.[/quote]

:) Figured just as much