1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What player do you take if...

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Fishhead, Jan 24, 2020.

  1. texanphinatic

    texanphinatic Senior Member

    10,327
    3,684
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Detroit Metro Area MI
    GM's consistently go all-in on demonstrating the sunk cost fallacy. We saw it with Mariota, we saw it with Winston. We are seeing it with Mitchell Trubisky. The Cardinals decision to move on from Rosen in year 1 was bold and impressive. We will see if their trash drunk of a GM can build a team around him and if Kliffy is a good coach or not, but Murray showed he belonged, whereas Rosen was straight garbage.
     
    Pauly and Cashvillesent like this.
  2. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,306
    1,861
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Working out great for the Browns.....
     
    Cashvillesent and resnor like this.
  3. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Rosen Staff Member Club Member

    28,787
    30,303
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    I have the extreme opposite feeling. Do your research, don't be impulsive, make sure that you feel right, and then take your guy when the chance is there. And then, give him time, let him grow, and don't pull the plug for at least three or four seasons unless its a total disaster that's clearly his fault, or he's a problem off the field.
     
  4. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent Well-Known Member

    519
    390
    63
    Dec 8, 2019
    You keep wasting 1st rders because you fail to land a franchise QB? Thats horrible GM-ing skills.
     
  5. Surfs Up 99

    Surfs Up 99 Team Flores & Team Tua

    1,950
    1,784
    113
    May 5, 2016
    This, PLUS build a quality OL that will do a decent job of protecting him that can also open up some holes for the running game. Please no cut-rate O-lines this time around Grier.
     
    RevRick and Unlucky 13 like this.
  6. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Rosen Staff Member Club Member

    28,787
    30,303
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    Always. If the OL sucks, then its never fully the quarterback's fault. Honestly, its never fully the quarterback's fault, but without at least an average line, you never really know how good the QB is capable of. Same goes for having at least adequate coaching.
     
    Mafioso and Surfs Up 99 like this.
  7. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,782
    9,228
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    The first part about "do your research" sounds good in theory, but the problem is that pro scouts just aren't that good at QB evals. They're not good on an absolute scale and they're not good on a relative scale. On an absolute scale just look at the huge number of misses even when teams get to pick high in the draft, and on a relative scale you so often see the 1st QB taken not being the best from that draft class.

    The second part about not parting with a QB after 3-4 seasons flies in the face of statistics that show that most QB's tend to remain relatively stable in ability from about year 4 starting.

    So I also think one should keep taking QB's until you find the right one, though I wouldn't advocate using a high pick on a QB each time precisely because QB evals aren't that good. I think using multiple mid-round picks on QB's while evaluating the current starter is a good idea, only using a top pick when you have a chance at a top prospect (i.e., which does correspond to a slightly better chance of success).
     
    Pauly and texanphinatic like this.
  8. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Rosen Staff Member Club Member

    28,787
    30,303
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    But the big problem is that if you don't give the QB time, then you need and expect him to be good right away, and often to be good right away on a team that isn't very good. And we all know that a lot of guys take some time to develop, and need to do it with help. So if you just keep tossing guys to the side if they aren't lights out from day one, then you're giving up on some that can and will get better, and essentially just waiting for a miracle.
     
  9. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,782
    9,228
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    3-4 seasons is statistically speaking enough time. Yes, you'll miss a few, but giving a QB too much time also means you lose more opportunities to find a franchise QB. Besides, like I said I'd advocate using mid-round picks WHILE evaluating the current starter before you decide to use a high round pick again.
     
    texanphinatic likes this.
  10. Rick 1966

    Rick 1966 Professional Hipshooter

    6,982
    2,521
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    Lakeland, FL
    Baker Mayfield is a good QB and if he had a competent coach, he'd be doing a lot better.
     
    texanphinatic likes this.
  11. Rick 1966

    Rick 1966 Professional Hipshooter

    6,982
    2,521
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    Lakeland, FL
    How many QBs in the last fifteen years have taken more than 4 seasons as a starter to show they were a franchise QB?
     
    texanphinatic likes this.
  12. ripper1961

    ripper1961 Active Member

    226
    168
    43
    Jan 13, 2014
    Since our Oline has sucked for so long why don't we just spend our entire draft on linemen?:crapstrom:
     
    RevRick likes this.
  13. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Rosen Staff Member Club Member

    28,787
    30,303
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    I would not complain if we used three of our first five picks on the OL. We'll see what happens in UFA first.
     
  14. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,306
    1,861
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Same thing was said about Tannehill..... at least that turned out to be true. We'll see about Mayfield.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  15. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,306
    1,861
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    How do you propose properly evaluating all of those QBs? The likelihood of a mid round pick developing into anything other that a backup is much less than a high pick.
    Since 2000, the number of QBs by round that became franchise QBs:

    Round 2: 1 - Brees
    Round 3: 1 - Wilson
    Round 4: 2 - Prescott, Cousins
    Round 5: 0
    Round 6: 1 - Brady
    Round 7: 0
    Undrafted: at least one - Romo

    There are a handful of other that became decent starters - Carr, Dalton, Fitzpatrick, Foles. I'm sure some will disagree that Prescott and Cousins meet the definition of franchise QB.

    It was a quick check and I could be missing some but there were dozens of QBs taken in that timeframe.
     
  16. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Rosen Staff Member Club Member

    28,787
    30,303
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    You arent wrong. But its also because QBs are so frequently over drafted. Guys who should go in the second and third are taken in the first all the time.
     
  17. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,782
    9,228
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    The odds of a mid- or low-round pick developing into a franchise QB are definitely MUCH lower than with a high round pick, but it's clearly greater than zero. All I'm saying is why not have your backup also be someone you can evaluate for potential rather than signing some vet for backup that you KNOW won't ever develop into a franchise QB?

    Remember, I'm not advocating NOT using a high round pick on a QB when there's evidence your current starter isn't up to task. I wanted us to use our 1st rounder (if necessary with a trade up) in 2017 on a QB after Tannehill had a season ending injury (we might have gotten Mahomes or Watson had we done that!), and I want us to use our first pick this year (again if necessary with trade up) to get Tua.

    Point is.. using a high round pick every 3-5 years AND using multiple mid/low round picks in intervening years should give any coaching staff a better opportunity to find a franchise QB than not doing so.
     
    Patster1969 and Puka-head like this.
  18. PhinFan1968

    PhinFan1968 To 2020, and BEYOND! Club Member

    Honestly, I'm not in love with any of the QBs in this draft...except a pre-injury Tua, but it wouldn't bother me if they took him at 5. I don't believe we'll have a chance at a true franchise QB this year if he doesn't pan out. The LAST thing I'd do would be bring in Tua and put him under fire, even after resting a year, until they can PROVE they can fix this disaster of an O line...that has been a disaster for MANY years. I'd rather build the team first.

    If Burrow (will be) and Tua (may be) are gone, I'd be fine with dropping back out of #5 if there's a good deal on the table, unless Simmons is sitting there...that dude is insane. If Simmons is on the board and they pass on him, I'm done with Grier, personally.

    Pick up Fromm later on and groom him, worst case, but realize at that point you're probably still in the market for rookie QB talent going forward. If he even turns out to be a decent backup, score. If he ends up franchise level, home run. Outside of obvious guys like Luck, its just so damn hard to hit on a QB.
     
  19. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent Well-Known Member

    519
    390
    63
    Dec 8, 2019
    On top of that the Dolphins talent level on the front 7 on the oline doesnt impress me at all. Its much more important fixing that front first than throwing your fire power on a QB...

    Every good GM has come in and build that oline and made the team a winning franchise.

    Starting with the Colts- the moron that destroyed Luck and never did fix that line to give him good protection, finally got fired. They hired Ballard from the Ravens and they immediately turned that team around by using their early pick fixing that front line.... Jon Robinson did the samething with the Titans organization..

    They are alot of other examples of teams improving because they have addressed fixing the oline.

    Not sure it would be smart drafting a QB when your oline cant give him 2seconds in the pocket.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2020
    RevRick and Unlucky 13 like this.
  20. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,306
    1,861
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    There is just not enough time or roster positions to properly evaluate the mid/low round picks to take one so often. You need the starter, and a backup you can count on. That leaves one spot for the developmental guy. He is not getting the reps in practice. How are you going to evaluate him in a year or two? You also have to pick guys that can run your current offense, otherwise practice will be a mess.

    IMO, it is just not feasible and that is why no teams do it. If there were unlimited roster spots for developmental QBs, then I'd say go for it.
     
  21. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,782
    9,228
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    You say no teams do it, but the most successful of them all does. Look at what Belichick did since he became Patriots coach.

    Belichick had a franchise QB in Drew Bledsoe when he went to NE, yet in his first year (2000) he picks Tom Brady with a 6th round pick.

    So once Tom Brady established himself as a franchise QB and even won a SB, what does Belichick do? He picks Rohan Davey in 2002 with a 4th round pick. He then follows that up with Cliff Kingsbury in 2003 with a 6th round pick. Then Matt Cassel in 2005 with a 7th rounder. Then Kevin O'Connell in 2008 with a 3rd rounder. Then Zac Robinson in 2010 with a 7th rounder. Then Ryan Mallett in 2011 with a 3rd rounder. Then Jimmy Garoppolo in 2014 with a 2nd rounder. Then Jacoby Brissett in 2016 with a 3rd rounder. Then Danny Etling in 2018 with a 7th rounder. Then Jason Stidlam in 2019 with a 4th rounder.

    That's one 2nd rounder, 3 3rd rounders, 2 4th rounders, 2 6th rounders and 3 7th rounders that Belichick has spent on backup QB's all while he's had a franchise QB. And one of them (Tom Brady) turned into gold. Tom Brady is NOT happening if you just sign a FA backup QB that you know will never be better than average.

    So yes, at least one team does it, and that team is by far the most successful team in the last few decades. We should do it too.
     
  22. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,306
    1,861
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Are you implying that the Patriots were successful because of the picks they wasted on terrible QBs? LOL. If you really want to emulate the Patriots, pick an all-time great QB (anywhere) and hire an all-time great coach. Then, give them the tools necessary to be successful. 7th round QBs that get waived before their first season are not part of that winning formula.

    In addition, they didn't take a QB with a mid or late round pick every year.

    2000 - yes
    2001 - no
    2002 - yes
    2003 - yes
    2004 - no
    2005 - yes
    2006 - no
    2007 - no
    2008 - yes
    2009 - no
    2010 - yes
    2011 - yes
    2012 - no
    2013 - no
    2014 - yes
    2015 - no
    2016 - yes
    2017 - no
    2018 - yes
    2019 - yes

    11 out of 20 is just over half the time.

    Finally, the Patriots have had two luxuries that most teams do not have. First, an already stacked roster with few holes. Second, a ridiculous number of draft picks.

    Draft picks by year
    2000 - 10
    2001 - 10
    2002 - 6
    2003 - 10
    2004 - 8
    2005 - 7
    2006 - 10
    2007 - 9
    2008 - 7
    2009 - 12
    2010 - 12
    2011 - 9
    2012 - 7
    2013 - 7
    2014 - 9
    2015 - 11
    2016 - 9
    2017 - 4
    2018 - 9
    2019 - 10
     
  23. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,306
    1,861
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    One final point, look at what actually happened with the mid round picks (2 - 4):

    Rohan Davey - bust
    Kevin O-Connell - bust
    Ryan Mallett - bust
    Garopollo - good player, picked 62nd in the 2014 draft. Traded for the 2018 48th pick. Hardly a win.
    Jacoby Brissett - Traded for Phillip Dorsett who has started 8 games for NE over 3 seasons. Not a win.
    Jason Stidlam - TBD

    They are not successful because of the mid to late round picks (except for Brady). They have been a great team that hasn't been impacted by poor picks. First make the Dolphins great, then adopt whatever strategy they want.
     
  24. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,782
    9,228
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    They certainly got Tom Brady because they were willing to use mid/low round picks on QB's even when they had a franchise QB. So unless you think Brady wasn't important to their success, yes that strategy has paid off for them.

    And I never said use a mid/low round pick every year. I'm just saying using some is better than NONE. And it's quite remarkable that NE has used so many picks on QB's given that they have an all-time great at QB. Don't forget.. the conversation here is what should a team that does NOT have a solution at QB do. Makes no sense to just give up on at least partly evaluating multiple QB's just because you want a backup you "can count on" when your starter isn't that good.
    That's obvious. The probability of success is low so you pick a whole bunch to try to find that one gem.
     
  25. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,306
    1,861
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Okay. Let's do that then. Find a GOAT in the 6th round. sign me up. But, don't forget the coach.

    Who picks none? I will grant you that Miami has picked to few but none? That is just false.

    Then why are we talking about this with respect to the Patriots? Why use them as an example of what a team without a QB should do?

    When the team has holes everywhere, you just cannot use so many picks (especially mid round picks) on QBs. Sorry.
     
  26. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,782
    9,228
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I never said every team picks none. I'm arguing against YOUR position that we shouldn't use mid- or low-round picks on QB's while still evaluating the starting QB.

    Using maybe 1 mid or low round pick every 2 drafts or so while you evaluate your starter is not wasting picks. Sorry, it's good strategy.

    First you said no team does what I'm suggesting, which is false. And second, if the Patriots are doing it when they already HAVE a franchise QB, then it's hard to argue one shouldn't do it when one does NOT have a franchise QB.
     
  27. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,713
    942
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The other thing to factor into this equation is that any players chosen with the picks you're suggesting be used on QBs are unlikely to become long-term starters (let alone good or above-average players) in the league anyway. A few years ago I took a look at that and found that the figure for first-rounders is 50%, and it drops precipitously from there. I believe by the third round the figure is 12%.

    People tend to think of third-round picks as "high" picks, but third-round picks don't become good players in the league the vast majority of the time.
     
  28. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,306
    1,861
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    No team does what you originally suggested, which was (and I quote):

    "Point is.. using a high round pick every 3-5 years AND using multiple mid/low round picks in intervening years"

    That sure looks like picking a QB nearly every year..... DOES NOT HAPPEN. I just did a check, the most QBs drafted by any team in the 20 year period from 2000 to 2019 is 12. Here are the teams in double digits:

    Broncos 12
    49ers 11
    Jets 11
    Patriots 11
    Ravens 11
    Redskins 11
    Browns 10

    Number of picks spent on QBs hardly seems like a consistent win....

    The Patriots got lucky. The Broncos suck at picking QBs and traded for Manning. The 49ers had success with two high picks and a trade. The Ravens used two high picks. The Jets, Redskins, and Browns are flailing.

    BTW, shouldn't you be doing some statistical look and this with z-scores and stuff and not looking at a single outlier?
     
  29. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,782
    9,228
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah, in general that's true, but the probabilities do depend on position. Here's one article that looked at the probability of finding a consistent starter by position and draft round, which they define as starting at least 1/2 of all games in that player's career (one can quibble with that definition but it's better than nothing):
    https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015...e-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round

    1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)
    2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%)
    3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)
    4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%)
    5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%)
    6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%)
    7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%)

    So the opportunity cost of using a 3rd rounder on a QB is higher than for most other positions.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  30. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,713
    942
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Looks like the fifth round was where it reached 12%, not the third.
     
  31. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,306
    1,861
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    And when you are a team with holes at the other positions, you cannot afford it. When you are stacked, you can.
     
    Unlucky 13 likes this.
  32. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,782
    9,228
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    No that does NOT imply picking a QB every year, though I wouldn't necessarily be against it. Belichick picked on average 1 every 2 years, which literally gives you "multiple" mid/low round picks within a 3-5 year timespan.

    Look if you have no issue with that approach then just admit it and let's move on. But I stand by what I said in that it's good strategy to use mid/lower round picks to constantly evaluate new QB's AND to use those as your backups rather than signing some FA that you KNOW will never be better than average. Better to increase the odds of finding that gem than not.
     
    danmarino likes this.
  33. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,306
    1,861
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Agree to disagree
     
  34. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,713
    942
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    This is probably an issue that hinges on people's beliefs about the necessity of having an elite QB for winning a Super Bowl, and how that determines how the mid-round picks should be used.
     
  35. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,782
    9,228
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    The calculation would be to compare expected increase in win% for different draft strategies. Problem is that it's hard to estimate the opportunity cost. One could estimate expected win% for different draft strategies for picking QB's because you can relate passer rating to win% to get some idea, but what's the expected increase in win% for using a mid/low draft pick you'd have otherwise used on a QB to pick a different position player? Not sure how to estimate expected win% for that, so I have no issue with people having different views, but my bias is towards doing what you can to find a very good QB even if it marginally slows down building the rest of the team.

    Can't show which approach is better from a statistical point of view however.. precisely because it's hard to estimate the opportunity cost.
     
    FinFaninBuffalo likes this.
  36. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,306
    1,861
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Still think you're an awesome poster and big contributor to the board..... even if you are wrong on this issue.... j/k
     
    cbrad likes this.
  37. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Rosen Staff Member Club Member

    28,787
    30,303
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    I agree. Its a lot like real life. If you have a great job, and already have a nice house, car, ect paid for, then you can use more of your money on extravagant things like vacations and high end electronics. But if you're barely squeaking by, then you need to spend what you have on the essentials.

    A team that needs to upgrade half of its starters and has poor depth can't afford to be using high picks on backup quarterbacks. A team that's already a 12 or 13 game winner on paper can.
     
  38. hitman8

    hitman8 Well-Known Member

    1,618
    806
    113
    Nov 11, 2016
    Here is a more realistic scenario with an up to date board.
     

    Attached Files:

  39. Rick 1966

    Rick 1966 Professional Hipshooter

    6,982
    2,521
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    Lakeland, FL

    Why would we make that trade?
     
  40. hitman8

    hitman8 Well-Known Member

    1,618
    806
    113
    Nov 11, 2016
    Because Tua is a big injury risk, we have too many holes to fill, and we get better value by trading down.
     

Share This Page