The Mid Round QB fallacy

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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?

Are you an economist or something? Football isn't only a science and it can be hard to measure art. I know that I've said it before but your pretty and obscure numbers can't explain everything for good or for bad. Some things are unquantifiable or just aren't represented well by numbers. There are too many factors to consider to break it down to something so concise; with all of the tape that you watch I figured you'd have this down by now because at times it seems like you only watch the stats board.

[30gut]

Its interesting that you say of course now but i was responding to your statement that:

I think Clausen, Luck, possibly Locker have the tools to be elite QBs

Originally Posted by 30gut

Imo there is no such thing as an eilte QB prospect independent of the team and situation around them.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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.

I don't understand how an 'elite QB prospects' early success is dependent on the team around but in 2-3 years they'll suddenly be able to have success with pieces missing?

Lets just look at the first part of your statement.
What if the 'elite QB prospect' goes to a situation that isn't conducive to success?
Won't they cease being an 'elite QB prospect'?

Here's my point that i think you're missing.
The QB position is totally dependent on the other 11 heck the other 21 people on his team doing their job before the QB can be in a postion to have success or become elite.

Imo the situation is the most important factor in determining the success or failure of QB.

That's why the label of 'elite QB prospect' or 'franchise caliber QB' never made much sense to me.

You aren't until you become one.
Its like being a No.1 receiver anyone can label Roy Williams a No.1 receiver but Miles Austin's play on the field made him the No.1

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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.

Shuler and Leaf were tops physically, but I believe both had question marks about their mental approach to the game.

And like i said in my post some of the QBs will rate higher/lower in different physically measureable areas but at the end of the day they'll all have the requiste skill to be an NFL QB. Naturally if their all similiar physically the difference has to be the immeasureables.
And that is why picking a QB is such a crap shot at the end of the day after everything has been measured you still don't know.
*(I don't recall any question marks about Shuler and only heard about Leaf's questions marks much after he became a bust)

Imo another reason you can't predict a QBs success has nothing to do with the player its about the situation more then the player.

Imho it takes a good franchise to create a franchise QB.
It takes vision, coaching and personelle.
And until a team has the right elements to become a good franchise they can draft 1st round QBs every 3-4 years and never end up with a 'franchise' QB.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 30gut

I don't understand how an 'elite QB prospects' early success is dependent on the team around but in 2-3 years they'll suddenly be able to have success with pieces missing?

It takes a minute to adjust from the NCAA to the NFL. Once that happens the elite QB prospect becomes an elite NFL QB. The difference is in being a prospect, and actually making the transition to an elite NFL QB. In the cases I mentioned earlier in the thread, the elite QBs made those around them better and the teams showed marked improvement without a drastic change of personnel.

Lets just look at the first part of your statement.
What if the 'elite QB prospect' goes to a situation that isn't conducive to success?
Won't they cease being an 'elite QB prospect'?

No. Both Mannings and others have gone into teams that were in bad shape. Because the team around them is bad, doesn't mean the QB is bad. The QB will take time and have growing pains, especially in the first year in that situation, but it doesn't make him "non-elite". Once the QB "gets it" at the NFL level, he begins to make others around him better. If you put an elite QB in a good situation (Rivers), he will produce faster.

Here's my point that i think you're missing.
The QB position is totally dependent on the other 11 heck the other 21 people on his team doing their job before the QB can be in a postion to have success or become elite.

Imo the situation is the most important factor in determining the success or failure of QB.

The situation is important, but if the organization is solid and not an Oakland, Cincy, etc. The team will not be in terrible shape for too long. Having an elite QB will make that average team good, and that good team great.

That's why the label of 'elite QB prospect' or 'franchise caliber QB' never made much sense to me.

You aren't until you become one.

A kid coming out of college can be rated and evaulated as an elite QB, if he makes the transition then the evaluators were right. If not, they made a poor evalaution or the QB went to a terrible long-term situation. It's why elite QBs don't grow on tress and are so important to playoff success in the NFL.

And like i said in my post some of the QBs will rate higher/lower in different physically measureable areas but at the end of the day they'll all have the requiste skill to be an NFL QB.

That's like saying all NFL lineman have the requiste skill to play OL, or all NFL RBs have the skill to play RB.....but I don't think there's an argument that a healthy Chris Samuels is leaps and bounds better than Stephon Heyer or Levi Jones. Similarly a LT in his prime is far better than Ladell Betts.

*(I don't recall any question marks about Shuler and only heard about Leaf's questions marks much after he became a bust)

As fans we didn't have all the scouting info and reports that we get to see now, but I recall questions about Shuler's mental abilities before he was drafted.

Imho it takes a good franchise to create a franchise QB.
It takes vision, coaching and personelle.
And until a team has the right elements to become a good franchise they can draft 1st round QBs every 3-4 years and never end up with a 'franchise' QB.

Franchises don't normally "create" franschise QBs except in extreme cases (Brady, Montana). But I agree that having the tools in place to help the elite QB be successful are important. But those pieces can be built around the QB. The teams that draft QBs in the first round and never seem to succeed are generally poor franshices, with poor talent evaluators.

Here's an example, Manning is an elite QB, he went to a bad situation in Indy. Indy built around him and has been consistently good. Kurt Warner (not an elite QB IMO) has success in the greatest show on turf. He has Marshall Faulk, Torry Holt, Issac Bruce, etc. After that he struggles, then when paired with Fitz and Boldin has success. Warner is not an elite QB, he needs the pieces around him to be successful. (For all you Warner fans, I don't need to see his resume, the guy is good, just not elite).

[53Fan]

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.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

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.

and in 8 there was a 1st round QB in the game

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

and in 8 there was a 1st round QB in the game

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.

[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.