The Mid Round QB fallacy

[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.

[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

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

...

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.

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

[SmootSmack]

I think 30Gut said it best when he said "Everything is true...until it isn't"

[GTripp0012]

Final point: if you could have taken a future franchise quarterback at No. 4, and you decide to pass and go with the best OT, and Sam Bradford ends up being the next Philip Rivers...then who cares? A franchise-changing pickup for the team who did draft him for less money, but no one in the NFC East is sniffing around QBs, so it's no skin off our back.

We'd just keep plugging.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Final point: if you could have taken a future franchise quarterback at No. 4, and you decide to pass and go with the best OT, and Sam Bradford ends up being the next Philip Rivers...then who cares? A franchise-changing pickup for the team who did draft him for less money, but no one in the NFC East is sniffing around QBs, so it's no skin off our back.

We'd just keep plugging.

I think a lot of this depends on what situation Bradford gets put in. For instance, there is no way in hell that Sanchez has the same success here in DC, that he found with the Jets. While a talented QB, I just don't think he would have been successful here with the Redskins with our terrible offensive line, poor running game, and our signature "bend-but-don't-break" defense.

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I think a lot of this depends on what situation Bradford gets put in. For instance, there is no way in hell that Sanchez has the same success here in DC, that he found with the Jets. While a talented QB, I just don't think he would have been successful here with the Redskins with our terrible offensive line, poor running game, and our signature "bend-but-don't-break" defense.

I really hope that's a thing of the past. We broke too many times last year with the game on the line.

[GTripp0012]

Campbell isn't really an experiment any more. We pretty much know what we can expect if we don't change the status quo. The only thing we don't know about Jason Campbell is how good he would be if we change the talent around him.

For all the talk about systems and changes, Campbell hasn't missed his potential because of a lack of consistency. He's probably fallen short of greatness due to a lack of talent, possibly on his part, but probably on everyone elses.

[over the mountain]

^^ agreed.

thats all i got.

[GusFrerotte]

What makes you think Bradford can be elite without a shitload of talent around him? That is my point with going for these second tier guys who have played great ball without the great talent around them. It might take us at least 3 years to produce a winning product, and that is if Allen and co get it right, no draft busts, etc. IF Shanny likes Bradford and thinks he is a gamer who am I to say any differently, but if Bradford starts in 2011 he still is going to have to deal with a less than stellar crop of talent around him. Bradford's potentially bum shoulder, aside, he might suck when faced up against a superior opponent or one that is on par with the Skins. He never had to face that at Oklahoma, except maybe twice a year at the most.

[Schneed10]

Don't get me wrong though, something has to be done about LT and the rest of the line. I don't think we'll ever win a SB with Levi Jones or Stephon Heyer starting at LT, we've got to get better at that spot. It's just I'd gladly get behind rolling the dice on Bradford or Clausen if Shanahan thought he's found his new Elway. Even though we need the LT upgrade, the QB takes priority.

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Don't get me wrong though, something has to be done about LT and the rest of the line. I don't think we'll ever win a SB with Levi Jones or Stephon Heyer starting at LT, we've got to get better at that spot. It's just I'd gladly get behind rolling the dice on Bradford or Clausen if Shanahan thought he's found his new Elway. Even though we need the LT upgrade, the QB takes priority.

If he thinks that, he'd be stupid not to take him.

[sportscurmudgeon]

I don't think Sam Bradford - - or any QB in this year's draft - - is the new John Elway. I suspect that Mike Shanahan - - having coached Elway and seen him on game film a thousand times - - will not equate any of the QBs coming out of college in 2010 with John Elway.