The Mid Round QB fallacy

[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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

Well if Shanahan's evaluation of the QBs matches yours, then I'd be all for Okung. By getting into talent evaluation and picking Clausen and Bradford apart we get a little removed from the original intent of the thread.

I just think if you're on the clock and there's a QB there who you think can enter the upper echelon, you get him, no matter what your other needs are. Unless of course you've already got a QB like that. Risks be damned.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Well if Shanahan's evaluation of the QBs matches yours, then I'd be all for Okung. By getting into talent evaluation and picking Clausen and Bradford apart we get a little removed from the original intent of the thread.

I just think if you're on the clock and there's a QB there who you think can enter the upper echelon, you get him, no matter what your other needs are. Unless of course you've already got a QB like that. Risks be damned.

What a battle. The two biggest number guys (albeit different number types) on the warpath going head to head.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Well if Shanahan's evaluation of the QBs matches yours, then I'd be all for Okung. By getting into talent evaluation and picking Clausen and Bradford apart we get a little removed from the original intent of the thread.

I just think if you're on the clock and there's a QB there who you think can enter the upper echelon, you get him, no matter what your other needs are. Unless of course you've already got a QB like that. Risks be damned.

And that's the reason that once a QB becomes elite.. that the team is rarely in the position to draft a top QB prospect again.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I just think if you're on the clock and there's a QB there who you think can enter the upper echelon, you get him, no matter what your other needs are. Unless of course you've already got a QB like that. Risks be damned.

I think Jason Campbell could easily enter the top echilon of quarterbacks. Still. Problem is that I absolutely do not think that he WILL, and especially not here. I used to think it was only a matter of time before he'd be in the top ten, but the quality of our offense has declined greatly since 2007 and the beginning of 2008. And thusly, while I can still see the potential there, I think the longer he stays in Washington, the less likely he is to achieve anything beyond what he already has.

Same deal with any rookie we might draft. The quality of the offense he'd be in from day one is pathetic. The system, however, would be the one proven thing we'd have to work with. We don't have great talent on the outsides or in the backfield, or up front, so in effect what we're looking for is a system quarterback. Can he execute the Shanahan playbook as well as any other player in this draft? If the answer is yes, I don't see why we wouldn't take one at four.

I honestly have no idea if a system quarterback drafted in the second round is as good as a system quarterback drafted in the first. I really don't think any team has ever tried to take a system quarterback in the top ten picks. And I don't see why Washington would be any different. But I think Shanahan has to at least evaluate all the options. If his system values accuracy above all, and Sam Bradford and Jimmy Clausen are the two most accurate passers in the entire class (ignoring McCoy), then I think you almost have to take one of them.

But are we rebuilding on offense? Or are we just adding Shanahan players to what already exists? And if we're rebuilding, why did we hire Shanahan? And what of 2011? There's so much context I can't answer here, but the one thing I think I can answer is that, context-neutral, Bradford and Clausen are both reaches at No. 4.