What player do you take if...

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

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.

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.

"cbrad wrote:

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.

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

"cbrad wrote:

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.

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.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

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.
11 out of 20 is just over half the time.

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.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

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

That's obvious. The probability of success is low so you pick a whole bunch to try to find that one gem.

"cbrad wrote:

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.

Okay. Let's do that then. Find a GOAT in the 6th round. sign me up. But, don't forget the coach.

"cbrad wrote:

And I never said use a mid/low round pick every year. I'm just saying using some is better than NONE.

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

"cbrad wrote:

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.

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?

"cbrad wrote:

That's obvious. The probability of success is low so you pick a whole bunch to try to find that one gem.

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

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

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

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.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

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

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.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

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?

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.

"cbrad wrote:

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.

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.

"cbrad wrote:

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.

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?

"The Guy wrote:

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.

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/2015/2/20/8072877/what-the-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.

"cbrad wrote:

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/2015/2/20/8072877/what-the-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.

Looks like the fifth round was where it reached 12%, not the third.

"cbrad wrote:

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/2015/2/20/8072877/what-the-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.

And when you are a team with holes at the other positions, you cannot afford it. When you are stacked, you can.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

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.

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.

"cbrad wrote:

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.

Agree to disagree

"cbrad wrote:

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.

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.

"The Guy wrote:

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.

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.

"cbrad wrote:

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.

Still think you're an awesome poster and big contributor to the board..... even if you are wrong on this issue.... j/k

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

And when you are a team with holes at the other positions, you cannot afford it. When you are stacked, you can.

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.

"texanphinatic wrote:

I have a hard time seeing them last that long (or Dobbins for that matter). I also doubt that safety lasts that long, most mocks have him in the first as a 1b to Delpit. Obviously things change, but that seems overly optimistic.

I do think that's ultimately a decent spot to look at Josh Jones, though I wonder if Grier would take a tackle in round 1 after trading away a round 1 tackle.

Here is a more realistic scenario with an up to date board.

"hitman8 wrote:

Here is a more realistic scenario with an up to date board.

Why would we make that trade?

"Rick 1966 wrote:

Why would we make that trade?

Because Tua is a big injury risk, we have too many holes to fill, and we get better value by trading down.

"hitman8 wrote:

Because Tua is a big injury risk, we have too many holes to fill, and we get better value by trading down.

I would question that value. If Tua turns out to be an elite QB, then we got bad value and missed on a QB.

While I like some of the selections, this kind of trading bonanza is just a bit too Maddenish and personal taste for me. The vast majority of evaluators have Tua as one of the better QB prospects in awhile and the hip injury seems to be on track for a full recovery.

"texanphinatic wrote:

I would question that value. If Tua turns out to be an elite QB, then we got bad value and missed on a QB.

While I like some of the selections, this kind of trading bonanza is just a bit too Maddenish and personal taste for me. The vast majority of evaluators have Tua as one of the better QB prospects in awhile and the hip injury seems to be on track for a full recovery.

Tua is hit or miss. If he turns out to be great then yes its a good pick, but if it turns out he is not the same after a major injury or if he continues to be injury prone in the NFL then it is a bad pick and you would have gotten better value by trading down.

I am of the philosophy that if a prospect is a not a sure fire top 10 pick who checks all the boxes in terms of no major injury history, great production, great game tape and good character and leadership ability then you are better off trading down. I would take a risk on tua if he falls mid to low first or early second, but not at #5.

"hitman8 wrote:

Tua is hit or miss. If he turns out to be great then yes its a good pick, but if it turns out he is not the same after a major injury or if he continues to be injury prone in the NFL then it is a bad pick and you would have gotten better value by trading down.

I am of the philosophy that if a prospect is a not a sure fire top 10 pick who checks all the boxes in terms of no major injury history, great production, great game tape and good character and leadership ability then you are better off trading down. I would take a risk on tua if he falls mid to low first or early second, but not at #5.

Tua is absolutely a top 10 pick and saying otherwise is just not realistic unless the medicals prove concerning later on. We will have a pretty solid idea of his movement ability prior to the draft. Take the QB. If it doesn't work, you try again. Find your QB, stop messing around.

I don't think Tua is the second coming of the Marino, but with the kind of draft capitol we have it would be criminally stupid not to take the chance. I would like to see the Phins double down and draft Eason or Hurts or even a raw prospect like McDonald from HI to back it up. They should draft 2 QBs this year, unless they still have hopes for Rosen. Which would just prove again that management should be drug tested as rigorously as players. And do it again next year. If you end up with a 1a 1b situation, trade 1b for next years picks. Keep shitting QBs til you have it right.

LOL. You guys know that people can have a different opinion that you do regarding the quarterbacks and not be idiots, right?