The Mid Round QB fallacy

[GTripp0012]

But here's the more important point: addressing the line "later on in the draft" is no less of a fallacy, especially for a team that appears to need a pair of tackles.

You can choose to not take the best tackle on your board at No. 4, opting instead for a higher player on your board. That's the BPA principle. It's worked for teams in the past. But it's a poor strategy to BPA the first round, and then try to compensate for that by drafting for need after that.

It's contradictory, in my mind, to identify the line (specifically tackle) as a pressing need, which I believe it is, and then look at the number four pick and say: let's try to pick up one later. Sure, it's a strategy that might pay off. Heck, we could not draft a tackle until 2014 and win two super bowls before then. It's certainly possible.

If you do well in your evaluations, going BPA in every round could land us three starting quality football players in addition to a pretty solid quarterback prospect who is only 22. If you're right, of course. And maybe the value suggested that no OT should be taken at any pick we had.

But I'll say this. In every draft I can remember, there has been an offensive tackle, if not two, who was worthy of a top five draft choice, who went somewhere in the first round. This player has not always been the first guy drafted. Mike Williams was the first guy off the board in 2002. Alternatively, there have been 3, maybe 4 years, in the last decade where a quarterback taken in the first round was worthy of a top five draft choice.

So if you have good scouting, and the market conditions are equal (not heavily weighted towards either QBs or OTs), which I think they are, and you have a shot at the No. 1 QB, and No. 1 OT on your board, the OT is the more valuable player about 2/3 of the time in a ten year sample.

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.

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

But here's the more important point: addressing the line "later on in the draft" is no less of a fallacy, especially for a team that appears to need a pair of tackles.

You can choose to not take the best tackle on your board at No. 4, opting instead for a higher player on your board. That's the BPA principle. It's worked for teams in the past. But it's a poor strategy to BPA the first round, and then try to compensate for that by drafting for need after that.

It's contradictory, in my mind, to identify the line (specifically tackle) as a pressing need, which I believe it is, and then look at the number four pick and say: let's try to pick up one later. Sure, it's a strategy that might pay off. Heck, we could not draft a tackle until 2014 and win two super bowls before then. It's certainly possible.

If you do well in your evaluations, going BPA in every round could land us three starting quality football players in addition to a pretty solid quarterback prospect who is only 22. If you're right, of course. And maybe the value suggested that no OT should be taken at any pick we had.

But I'll say this. In every draft I can remember, there has been an offensive tackle, if not two, who was worthy of a top five draft choice, who went somewhere in the first round. This player has not always been the first guy drafted. Mike Williams was the first guy off the board in 2002. Alternatively, there have been 3, maybe 4 years, in the last decade where a quarterback taken in the first round was worthy of a top five draft choice.

So if you have good scouting, and the market conditions are equal (not heavily weighted towards either QBs or OTs), which I think they are, and you have a shot at the No. 1 QB, and No. 1 OT on your board, the OT is the more valuable player about 2/3 of the time in a ten year sample.

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.

You said it much better than me GTripp. Great post.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

But here's the more important point: addressing the line "later on in the draft" is no less of a fallacy, especially for a team that appears to need a pair of tackles.

You can choose to not take the best tackle on your board at No. 4, opting instead for a higher player on your board. That's the BPA principle. It's worked for teams in the past. But it's a poor strategy to BPA the first round, and then try to compensate for that by drafting for need after that.

It's contradictory, in my mind, to identify the line (specifically tackle) as a pressing need, which I believe it is, and then look at the number four pick and say: let's try to pick up one later. Sure, it's a strategy that might pay off. Heck, we could not draft a tackle until 2014 and win two super bowls before then. It's certainly possible.

If you do well in your evaluations, going BPA in every round could land us three starting quality football players in addition to a pretty solid quarterback prospect who is only 22. If you're right, of course. And maybe the value suggested that no OT should be taken at any pick we had.

But I'll say this. In every draft I can remember, there has been an offensive tackle, if not two, who was worthy of a top five draft choice, who went somewhere in the first round. This player has not always been the first guy drafted. Mike Williams was the first guy off the board in 2002. Alternatively, there have been 3, maybe 4 years, in the last decade where a quarterback taken in the first round was worthy of a top five draft choice.

So if you have good scouting, and the market conditions are equal (not heavily weighted towards either QBs or OTs), which I think they are, and you have a shot at the No. 1 QB, and No. 1 OT on your board, the OT is the more valuable player about 2/3 of the time in a ten year sample.

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.

I'm glad that you weighted in on this subject, I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

But here's the more important point: addressing the line "later on in the draft" is no less of a fallacy, especially for a team that appears to need a pair of tackles.

You can choose to not take the best tackle on your board at No. 4, opting instead for a higher player on your board. That's the BPA principle. It's worked for teams in the past. But it's a poor strategy to BPA the first round, and then try to compensate for that by drafting for need after that.

It's contradictory, in my mind, to identify the line (specifically tackle) as a pressing need, which I believe it is, and then look at the number four pick and say: let's try to pick up one later. Sure, it's a strategy that might pay off. Heck, we could not draft a tackle until 2014 and win two super bowls before then. It's certainly possible.

If you do well in your evaluations, going BPA in every round could land us three starting quality football players in addition to a pretty solid quarterback prospect who is only 22. If you're right, of course. And maybe the value suggested that no OT should be taken at any pick we had.

But I'll say this. In every draft I can remember, there has been an offensive tackle, if not two, who was worthy of a top five draft choice, who went somewhere in the first round. This player has not always been the first guy drafted. Mike Williams was the first guy off the board in 2002. Alternatively, there have been 3, maybe 4 years, in the last decade where a quarterback taken in the first round was worthy of a top five draft choice.

So if you have good scouting, and the market conditions are equal (not heavily weighted towards either QBs or OTs), which I think they are, and you have a shot at the No. 1 QB, and No. 1 OT on your board, the OT is the more valuable player about 2/3 of the time in a ten year sample.

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.

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 great. 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.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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 great. 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.

Now that was a great post

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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 great. 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.

Good points Schneed. I just happen to think Okung would be a huge improvement over any LT we have. I love Samuels but think his better days are behind him. I don't feel anywhere near as sure that Bradford or Clausen are a big improvement over JC. They may be, they might not be. If the people in charge think so, so be it. Like I said, I'm a big fan of Bradford. I don't think anyone disagrees that nothing transforms your franchise like an elite QB. If we draft a QB with the #4 pick, I certainly hope he's elite. If not, we'll probably spend the next 3-5 years trying to make him one. I hope that's not the case. And even he would benefit from an elite o-line.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

Sounds like you want a quick fix with a franchise QB. The funny thing is that isn't that what Snyder wanted to do all along and why he wanted to get Sanchez or Cutler in the offseason? Get that franchise QB at all cost that will miraculously carry this team on his shoulders.

The funny thing about all of this is that while no one (including myself) is complaining about picking up Orakpo, had we picked up Michael Oher last year, we wouldn't be having this discussion about picking up a tackle vs. a QB with the #4 pick. By now, Oher would have had a year under his belt, and probably would have started a lot of games, and we would be free to pick up Bradford or Clausen.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Sounds like you want a quick fix with a franchise QB. The funny thing is that isn't that what Snyder wanted to do all along and why he wanted to get Sanchez or Cutler in the offseason? Get that franchise QB at all cost that will miraculously carry this team on his shoulders.

The funny thing about all of this is that while no one (including myself) is complaining about picking up Orakpo, had we picked up Michael Oher last year, we wouldn't be having this discussion about picking up a tackle vs. a QB with the #4 pick. By now, Oher would have had a year under his belt, and probably would have started a lot of games, and we would be free to pick up Bradford or Clausen.

Actually I'm not calling for a quick fix, because my opinion is colored by a sound understanding of recent league history when it comes to QBs. Peyton Manning took several years to reach the AFC Championship and ultimately win a Super Bowl. Drew Brees was mediocre early in his SD days, then got better with experience, and eventually reached all-pro level. Matt Ryan was impressive his first two years but he hasn't yet made the leap to become an elite QB. Phillip Rivers and Eli Manning took a few years to really get up and running (Eli's not even elite, but he still took time to win the SB).

I understand that a QB will most likely take time to reach that level of dominant force. And I understand that it takes a strong team around him, too.

But the point remains, it's a lot easier to win a SB with a dominant QB and solid LT than it is to win one with a dominant LT and a solid QB. That's a much more important point than the fact that 1st round offensive lineman are more likely to pan out than 1st round QBs.

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Actually I'm not calling for a quick fix, because my opinion is colored by a sound understanding of recent league history when it comes to QBs. Peyton Manning took several years to reach the AFC Championship and ultimately win a Super Bowl. Drew Brees was mediocre early in his SD days, then got better with experience, and eventually reached all-pro level. Matt Ryan was impressive his first two years but he hasn't yet made the leap to become an elite QB. Phillip Rivers and Eli Manning took a few years to really get up and running (Eli's not even elite, but he still took time to win the SB).

I understand that a QB will most likely take time to reach that level of dominant force. And I understand that it takes a strong team around him, too.

But the point remains, it's a lot easier to win a SB with a dominant QB and solid LT than it is to win one with a dominant LT and a solid QB. That's a much more important point than the fact that 1st round offensive lineman are more likely to pan out than 1st round QBs.

Yes but I think when you have the #4 pick, whether they have a better chance to pan out becomes pretty important. In fact that is one of the factors I'm using to form an opinion. I've read it written of Okung, "As close to can't miss as you can get." Samuels went out with an injury/condition that is career threatening. Levi Jones was picked up in the middle of the season because we needed a LT so bad. Good thing no one else wanted him.
Even the experts can't agree to who is the better prospect, Clausen or Bradford. Supposedly neither has an "elite" arm, Clausen is stronger but Bradford is more accurate etc.
If the question for this team this year is, do you take the position of greatest need with the #4 pick by taking the consensus best LT in the draft who is as close to can't miss as you can get, or, do you take a lottery ticket on an elite QB, assuming there even is one, and hope you pick the right one? Give me the tackle.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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 great. 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.

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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 contract 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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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 contract 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.

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 lose 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.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

another great post itt