What do you guys think about trying to draft a starting QB?

[riczaj01]

Aug 25, 2016 22:56:56 GMT -6 dachuckster said:

Aug 25, 2016 21:39:57 GMT -6 @soulman said:

Yeah, I would agree on both points.  Elway's ability to maneuver in the draft to get Lynch into his pipeline is an example of the type of aggressive move that may finally be needed to get our next QB lined up and in the pipeline.  It has to come sooner or later because I don't believe they'll go another route other than that one.

The progress in the team throughout this season and the play of the younger players will tell us a lot about where we stand by the time FA and the 2017 draft role around.  From the early opinions being rendered it sounds like it may not be a great year for NFL ready top QB which to me means a decent project to develop may be had later in round one or in two.

The one thing I do feel Phil Emery was not off base about is that the chances of finding starting caliber talent after the first two rounds diminishes to almost nothing.

I did some research a year or so ago on QBs who had won more than one SB.  A disproportionate number of that group weren't just drafted in the first 2 rounds, they were drafted in the first 5 or 10 picks in the first.

But times are a changing. The new NFL and how easy they've made the passing game via rules changes are changing that %.

Lets go back just 10 years to the Bears SB. 
Manning #1 overall
Eli #1 overall
Big Ben #11
Brees, Rd2
Rogers, Late round 1
Flacco Mid rd 1
Russell Wilson Rd 3
Tom Brady Rd 6(completely anomoly)

So you have 
2 guys that were picked in the top 5
3 picked 11-30
2 guys picked in rounds 2-3
1 picked after. 

You never want to go too far back in history b/c of the changes in nfl rules, and changes in their minor league(college football).  

[germansbombedph]

would be interesting to hear were the SB losing QB was drafted.

[riczaj01]

I'll go back to 2000 for that and list both QB's.

50: Manning vs Newton battle of the #1 picks
49: Brady vs Wilson, battle of the not 1st round QB's. 6th and 3rd
48: Wilson vs Manning, battle of 3rd rd vs #1 overall
47: Flacco vs Kaep 18th pick vs 2nd round pick
46: Eli vs Brady, battle of 1st overall vs 6th rd
45: Rogers vs Roth, battle of 11th and 24th first rounders
44: Brees vs Manning, 2nd round vs 1st overall
43: Roth vs Warner 11th overall vs CFL
42: Eli vs Brady see above
41: Manning vs Grossman, 1st overall vs 22nd pick
40: Roth vs Hasslebeck 11th vs another 6th round pick(traded from GB to Sea)

Regardless of round, you've had either Peyton or Brady in all but 4 of the last 11 SB's. And when you add in Roth and Brees and Rogers(rounding out what most would likely consider the top 5 qb's of this era) its only 1. That's how important getting the QB position correct is. Manning is one of the best and is only 2-2 in SB's, but I'd take that and bitch about losing 2, then I would my team going 2 times in 30 years.

In the last 5 years, you have Wilson, Flacco, Kaep and Brady all going outside of the top 5 picks in the first round. W/Manning and Newton being the only top 5 qb's. Brady is an anomaly though. Warner and Hassleback were also late rounders/not drafted, but haven't had near the success Brady has, Warner going to 2 SB's in his career.  

So right now, in this era you don't need a top 5 qb pick, but what you do need is a pick in the first 3 rounds(unless you are feeling lukcy). 

[Deleted]

I guess you could expand it to the first three rounds but there's another factor historical data won't provide and that is with more college teams playing spread offenses fewer and fewer top QB prospects have any college experience in a pro style offense at all. While that may not affect them in the long run it may take them longer to learn the basics and the nuances of a pro style offense.

So one question facing GMs, HCs, OCs, and scouts is do you reach a bit for the guy whose a bit more NFL ready due to his college background or do you take the guy who has the better upside and accept the fact that he'll sit for at least a year if not two while unlearns one way of doing things and you instill another? We may find ourselves better off drafting the latter than the former.

[riczaj01]

Aug 26, 2016 8:46:40 GMT -6 @soulman said:

I guess you could expand it to the first three rounds but there's another factor historical data won't provide and that is with more college teams playing spread offenses fewer and fewer top QB prospects have any college experience in a pro style offense at all. While that may not affect them in the long run it may take them longer to learn the basics and the nuances of a pro style offense.

So one question facing GMs, HCs, OCs, and scouts is do you reach a bit for the guy whose a bit more NFL ready due to his college background or do you take the guy who has the better upside and accept the fact that he'll sit for at least a year if not two while unlearns one way of doing things and you instill another? We may find ourselves better off drafting the latter than the former.

I think you are seeing the answer in qb's dropping into the 2nd and 3rd. Dak was a 4th, but probably would have been taken late 2nd or mid 3rd if not for the DUI. You are also going to see some of the spread come to the NFL b/c of this, the question will be how much. To much and you have RGIII, do it right and you have Russell Wilson.

[dachuckster]

Aug 26, 2016 10:53:22 GMT -6 riczaj01 said:

Aug 26, 2016 8:46:40 GMT -6 @soulman said:

I guess you could expand it to the first three rounds but there's another factor historical data won't provide and that is with more college teams playing spread offenses fewer and fewer top QB prospects have any college experience in a pro style offense at all. While that may not affect them in the long run it may take them longer to learn the basics and the nuances of a pro style offense.

So one question facing GMs, HCs, OCs, and scouts is do you reach a bit for the guy whose a bit more NFL ready due to his college background or do you take the guy who has the better upside and accept the fact that he'll sit for at least a year if not two while unlearns one way of doing things and you instill another? We may find ourselves better off drafting the latter than the former.

I think you are seeing the answer in qb's dropping into the 2nd and 3rd. Dak was a 4th, but probably would have been taken late 2nd or mid 3rd if not for the DUI. You are also going to see some of the spread come to the NFL b/c of this, the question will be how much. To much and you have RGIII, do it right and you have Russell Wilson.

I know I said this a lot on the old board.  But I absolutely believe it ...

The college game has changed to the newer limited read, extremely fast pace option offenses.  Read option, spread, whatever.  The colleges have done to to be competitive with a much less talented pool of players to draw on than the NFL has.  It is as much of a business decision for them as most of the decisions made at the pro level.

The NFL is going to have to get much better at identifying QBs who will be able to perform at the NFL level even though they come out of a system that is not pro style.  And they will have to take come of these prospects into their program and let them mature for a year or two before they will be productive.

[shark86]

Aug 26, 2016 3:58:46 GMT -6 @soulman said:

Aug 25, 2016 22:56:56 GMT -6 dachuckster said:

I did some research a year or so ago on QBs who had won more than one SB.  A disproportionate number of that group weren't just drafted in the first 2 rounds, they were drafted in the first 5 or 10 picks in the first.

That's not at all surprising chuck.  I've not done the research you did but my hunch would have led me to think that was probably what would come of it.  An NFL QB may have one of the toughest jobs in all of sports these days if not the toughest.  With the speed of the game and all of the information they need to process they practically need a mini computer inside their heads.

The number of players who come out of college who have that rare combination of size, speed, mobility, arm strength, and football intellect is pretty small.  I think that's why few of them ever make it as starters and even fewer enjoy long careers as successful starters.  Those few who can initially depend on their athleticism and a strong arm end up with short careers if they don't also have the smarts and the savvy to add to that as they age.

For these reasons alone I favor building a strong and dominant defense and maintaining it.  It's the only way to stay consistently on top without that franchise QB like a Brady, Rodgers, or a Manning and even then to win championships even those guys need a strong defense.

agreed, and That's why I hope Pace and Fox are downplaying the need for a super-QB with the offensive system they're developing. A system that relies on a committee of running backs would also devalue that RB position. If you can have a solid offense without too many high-payed overpriced positions, the whole team will be better off. The key to the offense is the defense. And special teams. They both need to be able to put the O in good field position and not let the score get run up against us.

[riczaj01]

Aug 26, 2016 11:12:52 GMT -6 dachuckster said:

Aug 26, 2016 10:53:22 GMT -6 riczaj01 said:

I think you are seeing the answer in qb's dropping into the 2nd and 3rd. Dak was a 4th, but probably would have been taken late 2nd or mid 3rd if not for the DUI. You are also going to see some of the spread come to the NFL b/c of this, the question will be how much. To much and you have RGIII, do it right and you have Russell Wilson.

I know I said this a lot on the old board.  But I absolutely believe it ...

The college game has changed to the newer limited read, extremely fast pace option offenses.  Read option, spread, whatever.  The colleges have done to to be competitive with a much less talented pool of players to draw on than the NFL has.  It is as much of a business decision for them as most of the decisions made at the pro level.

The NFL is going to have to get much better at identifying QBs who will be able to perform at the NFL level even though they come out of a system that is not pro style.  And they will have to take come of these prospects into their program and let them mature for a year or two before they will be productive.

I've felt that way for a few years now. really need to get your young qb in and let them sit and learn for a few years. 

[Deleted]

Aug 26, 2016 11:12:52 GMT -6 dachuckster said:

Aug 26, 2016 10:53:22 GMT -6 riczaj01 said:

I think you are seeing the answer in qb's dropping into the 2nd and 3rd. Dak was a 4th, but probably would have been taken late 2nd or mid 3rd if not for the DUI. You are also going to see some of the spread come to the NFL b/c of this, the question will be how much. To much and you have RGIII, do it right and you have Russell Wilson.

I know I said this a lot on the old board.  But I absolutely believe it ...

The college game has changed to the newer limited read, extremely fast pace option offenses.  Read option, spread, whatever.  The colleges have done to to be competitive with a much less talented pool of players to draw on than the NFL has.  It is as much of a business decision for them as most of the decisions made at the pro level.

The NFL is going to have to get much better at identifying QBs who will be able to perform at the NFL level even though they come out of a system that is not pro style.  And they will have to take come of these prospects into their program and let them mature for a year or two before they will be productive.

Very well stated chuck.  I agree with you 100%.

I believe that in today's drafts those QBs who may have the most upside in the pros won't necessarily be those who were the best college passer but maybe the guys one level down so we can hope to maybe draft a guy like that late in round one or possibly all the way through round three as Ric stated.  Dak Prescott may be a very good example of that type and he was a guy I thought we might take because he was a fit for our offense in much the same way I believe that Connor Shaw is and David Fales is not.

I believe we can draft a kid like that and let him mature behind Cutler for a bit in the same way that Rodgers did playing behind Favre.  I'm not taking anything away from Rodgers skills at all but that was a huge benefit to him because he knew that offense inside and out before he ever got the keys to run it and since then it's been tweaked to fit him like a glove.  When you contrast that to the canoe Cutler has had to paddle it's not too tough to see why two QBs with similar skills have produced very different results.

But I don't want to make this post about Cutler.

What I really hope we don't do is jump for a top college QB who has a boom or bust tag hanging around his neck in lieu of taking our time to scout out the right fit and take him when he becomes the BPA on Paces board wherever that may be.  I think we need to do it soon but without panic.  We have the luxury of having a talented vet starter whose career is in an upswing and whose also gotten cheaper to have rather than more expensive so he's not even a cap killer the way some of his peers have become.  Cutler's contract won't prevent us from paying for his eventual replacement or inhibit our rebuilding.  That maybe one of the few decent legacies Emery left behind.

[riczaj01]

See Soul, I knew we could agree on something. As much as we probably don't agree on Cutler, this is what I've wanted the last 3-4 years, a guy that can backup Cutler and develop behind him, challenging him 2-3 years down the line. What I didn't want was Cutler going away and the Bears HAVING to take a top boom/bust qb while drafting somewhere not #1 overall.