PDA

View Full Version : No... don't draft my team a franchise saving QB


descendency
12-09-2009, 05:50 PM
Why?

Why is it every draft year someone (especially teams with the #1 pick) would rather have their team take a far inferior position over the #1 rated QB? I could understand if you were the Tampa Bay Buccaneers why you might not want a QB #1 (or top 5), but how much difference is a S, CB, RB, WR, LB, DT really going to make?

An elite coverage corner can cover 1 guy.

An elite safety can provide soft coverage and provide some support in the box.

An elite running back might touch the ball 20 times a game, but will rely on running lanes being created and will likely just get stuffed by 8-9 men in the box if your QB sucks.

A #1 WR will suck coverage to him, but if your other WRs suck, you're still screwed.

A LB depends on what kind and what system, but in general a MLB or an OLB in a 43 just isn't going to be franchise changing.

A DT could solidify your run defense and pass defense by killing up the middle (See Ndamukong Suh versus Texas...) but very very very rarely ever makes the kind of impact they did in college in the NFL (see Warren Sapp).

There is virtually no pay difference between a top 5 pick invested into a QB as another core position.

A QB makes their OL just as much as an OL makes their QB. (See Jay Cutler, Aaron Rodgers, Peyton Manning)

An Elite QB makes their WRs just way more than the WRs make their QB (See Peyton Manning, Tom Brady from 2007 back..., etc)

It's not just people don't like Jimmy Clausen or Jake Locker this year. Lions fans hated the idea of Mark Sanchez or Matthew Stafford. Falcons fans (although not the #1 pick) did not want Matt Ryan.

Why do you not want your team to draft the most important position on the field? The guy touches it every offensive snap unless your head coach is an idiot (see Tony Sparano*...).

Who thought Minnesota's WRs were worth anything at the beginning of the year? (Other than Vikings homers). With Brett Favre, they look almost uncoverable.

With Drew Brees, his receivers in deed are uncoverable (provided your coach wears a hoodie with the sleeves cut to half length :().

"Please don't give me Jimmy Clausen. I'd rather have Leigh Tiffin."

* = I don't think Sparano is an idiot per se, but he has a young and talented QB that needs to develop. Playing around with a wildcat system while he sucks out valuable time from his developing QB screws with the rhythm and confidence of Chad Henne, which I think is idiotic.

If you listen to the Patriots talk about their feelings about Brady, it's almost mind bending how they let him fall to the 6th round. Here's the clip: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d8022063d/Top-Ten-Draft-Steals-Tom-Brady (@ 2:15 the part that I'm referring to starts)

Iamcanadian
12-09-2009, 06:02 PM
Why?

Why is it every draft year someone (especially teams with the #1 pick) would rather have their team take a far inferior position over the #1 rated QB? I could understand if you were the Tampa Bay Buccaneers why you might not want a QB #1 (or top 5), but how much difference is a S, CB, RB, WR, LB, DT really going to make?

An elite coverage corner can cover 1 guy.

An elite safety can provide soft coverage and provide some support in the box.

An elite running back might touch the ball 20 times a game, but will rely on running lanes being created and will likely just get stuffed by 8-9 men in the box if your QB sucks.

A #1 WR will suck coverage to him, but if your other WRs suck, you're still screwed.

A LB depends on what kind and what system, but in general a MLB or an OLB in a 43 just isn't going to be franchise changing.

A DT could solidify your run defense and pass defense by killing up the middle (See Ndamukong Suh versus Texas...) but very very very rarely ever makes the kind of impact they did in college in the NFL (see Warren Sapp).

There is virtually no pay difference between a top 5 pick invested into a QB as another core position.

A QB makes their OL just as much as an OL makes their QB. (See Jay Cutler, Aaron Rodgers, Peyton Manning)

An Elite QB makes their WRs just way more than the WRs make their QB (See Peyton Manning, Tom Brady from 2007 back..., etc)

It's not just people don't like Jimmy Clausen or Jake Locker this year. Lions fans hated the idea of Mark Sanchez or Matthew Stafford. Falcons fans (although not the #1 pick) did not want Matt Ryan.

Why do you not want your team to draft the most important position on the field? The guy touches it every offensive snap unless your head coach is an idiot (see Tony Sparano*...).

Who thought Minnesota's WRs were worth anything at the beginning of the year? (Other than Vikings homers). With Brett Favre, they look almost uncoverable.

With Drew Brees, his receivers in deed are uncoverable (provided your coach wears a hoodie with the sleeves cut to half length :().

"Please don't give me Jimmy Clausen. I'd rather have Leigh Tiffin."

* = I don't think Sparano is an idiot per se, but he has a young and talented QB that needs to develop. Playing around with a wildcat system while he sucks out valuable time from his developing QB screws with the rhythm and confidence of Chad Henne, which I think is idiotic.

If you listen to the Patriots talk about their feelings about Brady, it's almost mind bending how they let him fall to the 6th round. Here's the clip: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d8022063d/Top-Ten-Draft-Steals-Tom-Brady (@ 2:15 the part that I'm referring to starts)

This post is about a year too late. The top 5 offensive teams have a 41-8 record this year while the top 5 defensive teams only have a 31-24 record. It has finally become quite obvious even to the casual fan that QB's rule the modern game. GM's have held the golden rule since the beginning and especially in the cap era. All you have to do is examine how many QB's have gone #1 overall to realize it is only fans that doubted taking a QB #1 overall, GM's have always done it with only a few exceptions.

Babylon
12-09-2009, 06:04 PM
Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Joey Harrington, Jamarcus Russell, David Carr......a few reasons not to draft a QB too early.

Scott Wright
12-09-2009, 06:05 PM
Oh, I remember the days of Falcons fans BEGGING for Glenn Dorsey over Matt Ryan... :)

descendency
12-09-2009, 06:12 PM
Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Joey Harrington, Jamarcus Russell, David Carr......a few reasons not to draft a QB too early.

There is no such thing as a safe pick. You have to actually know how to scout and work them out.

edit: Fans still do it this year. I think they'll still do it next year.

DeepThreat
12-09-2009, 06:13 PM
IMO there are two reasons not to draft a QB with the top pick. The team's O-Line is too awful and he will get killed, or he isn't that good of a prospect.

RaiderNation
12-09-2009, 06:15 PM
Chances are one of these 3(or2) Qbs is going to be good, and the other 2 may flop or not live up to potential. Id much rather draft Suh than one of these Qbs right now

Splat
12-09-2009, 06:19 PM
Unless you all ready have the pieces in place there is a good chance you are just setting you're QB up to fail.

descendency
12-09-2009, 06:30 PM
IMO there are two reasons not to draft a QB with the top pick. The team's O-Line is too awful and he will get killed, or he isn't that good of a prospect.

If your OL can't support a QB, then you use your second pick to get an OL. And third and fourth if you have to. QBs change franchises.

As great of a player as Ndamukong Suh might become, unless he becomes the next Warren Sapp, he won't be in the ball park of importance with drafting a franchise changing QB. Even if he becomes Albert Haynesworth who is arguably the best DT in the game. Ed Reed is great, but that defense has Ray Lewis. It won the Super Bowl before Reed got there. How many Super Bowls has Reed won? None. Joe Thomas is among the best LTs in the NFL. Cleveland isn't exactly even in the playoff talk past week 2.

Name a team that drafted a franchise QB and in 3 years isn't at least making the playoffs. I mean you can look above for examples of great DTs, OT, and S that didn't get their team to the playoffs on their own (although Tennessee certainly misses Albert). I mean, I guess you could say Jay Cutler, who had nothing on defense which didn't matter how good he was or wasn't. Other than a team that is devoid on defense, I can't think of a good QB that didn't make their team much much better.

You're right, if you can't find a single franchise defining QB in the draft, you wouldn't take him #1... but I will be shocked the day a draft class doesn't have one good QB in it.

Many of the positions just don't have that much of a difference between a mid round prospect and a first round prospect. I mean if you take Golden Tate as a first rounder and Jordan Shipley as a 3rd rounder, which do you think Peyton Manning would be successful with?

I know some people would be shocked, but if my QB coach and OC came up to me and said Tim Tebow is the perfect fit for our system, he'd be #1 overall if I had the pick. There are positions I'd consider waiting if the player didn't have value to other teams, but not a QB. If I don't have a QB and I saw one I thought would change my franchise around, he'd be on the phone with me the second they called my teams name. (This isn't about Tebow, he's just an example.)

descendency
12-09-2009, 06:39 PM
Unless you all ready have the pieces in place there is a good chance you are just setting you're QB up to fail.

How many first rounders are you giving up for Pierre Garcon though? I mean, I really have to wonder how the Colts got such a talented guy in the 6th round. Then they have that Austin Collie guy... and some monster named Tom Santi. Oh and have you see Tony Ugoh at LT?

I know Peyton Manning is a rare find, but that's the caliber of guys you are trying to get in round 1.

Donovan McNabb was throwing to Freddie Mitchell at one point. How he survived that I don't know.

Tom Brady's top two WRs at one point (maybe not statistically, I don't know those off the top of my head) were and "old" Troy Brown and Reche Caldwell.

Sure, you get David Carrs and Joey Harringtons and Jamarcus Russells, but you get Robert Gallerys, Glenn Dorseys, and other busts at other positions too. Any position without talent around it is a potential failure.

jimbo
12-09-2009, 07:25 PM
Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Joey Harrington, Jamarcus Russell, David Carr......a few reasons not to draft a QB too early.

Peyton Manning, Donovan McNabb, Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, Matt Ryan....... a few reasons TO draft a QB early.

Scotty D
12-09-2009, 07:28 PM
A lot of Lion's fans here supported drafting Matthew Stafford and made fun of the people giving us Curry.

vidae
12-09-2009, 07:29 PM
I'm sorry but the Peyton Manning type QBs are few and far between. You're definitely not going to be as lucky as the Colts were. Hell, you remember that draft. You could just as easily get a Ryan Leaf over a Peyton Manning. How many experts thought Leaf should have been taken over Manning in the first place?

I'm not saying you don't draft a QB in the top 5, but you better love the guy if you do, especially if you're a team with a weak offensive line. Like Splat said, you're going to get him killed back there.

Also, I remember a lot of Lions fans on this board who WANTED Stafford #1 overall and I think it has worked out well so far. Yeah, the team overall isn't very talented but this last draft was NUTS for starters there. Imagine that team with another draft or two under its belt. For now though, they need people to protect him to really reach his full potential. I'm kind of surprised they started him over Culpepper. Letting Culpepper get killed behind that line while Stafford learns is the route I thought they'd take.

Cicero
12-09-2009, 07:31 PM
I'm going to be extremely disappointed if we don't leave round 1 with Locker or Clausen.

KCJ58
12-09-2009, 07:33 PM
as a Rams fan I really don't want to draft a QB with a top 3 pick

vidae
12-09-2009, 07:35 PM
as a Rams fan I really don't want to draft a QB with a top 3 pick

I have a buddy who is a die hard Rams fan and his family has had season tickets forever and he really wants a QB. You have your LT in Jason Smith and one of the best RBs in the NFL in Steven Jackson. From what I've heard the defense, as a unit, is getting better, so why not strike now while you can grab a "franchise" QB?

Halsey
12-09-2009, 07:47 PM
Because many fans think top rated QB's are too risky while other positions are 'safe'. They remember Joey Harrington, David Carr, etc but forget guys like Courtney Brown, Andre Wadsworth, Darrell Russell, Robert Gallery, etc.

vidae
12-09-2009, 07:58 PM
To be fair, Robert Gallery is a very good guard, but you do make a good point.

DeepThreat
12-09-2009, 08:34 PM
As a Browns fan, if Matthew Stafford or Matt Ryan was in this draft, I would want him. But I dislike the QB's available this year. That is my lone reason for not wanting a QB.

descendency
12-09-2009, 08:36 PM
To be fair, Robert Gallery is a very good guard, but you do make a good point.

He can be an all time great guard but at #2 overall, you're a bust in most people's eyes. I like what I heard from Bill Belichick on the matter though (slightly different topic) about how he had drafted 2 DTs in 2009, Ron Brace in the second and Myron Pryor in the 6th. With how Brace has played so far (that being not at all), most people would say he's a bust but Belichick basically said he drafted two DTs and has one starter which is what he would have wanted, so he doesn't see it as a bust/boom situation. You could say the same thing about Gallery. Although you spent a high pick on Gallery, you still got someone who contributes at a position on your team.

As a Browns fan, if Matthew Stafford or Matt Ryan was in this draft, I would want him. But I dislike the QB's available this year. That is my lone reason for not wanting a QB.

I know everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but if you watch Jimmy Clausen lead that offense, it's crazy. He was a defensive stop or two (or 20) from being in a BCS game. He's my best QB this year (in my opinion) despite the man love for Tebow and McCoy in terms of Heisman votes.

Prophet
12-10-2009, 12:16 AM
QB's are an obvious risk.
Scouting is and will never be an exact science but Left Tackles are as safe as you can get. (Gallery is a clear exception.. a servicable guard is far different from a franchise left tackle)

Thumper
12-10-2009, 12:33 AM
Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Joey Harrington, Jamarcus Russell, David Carr......a few reasons not to draft a QB too early.

Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, Donovan McNabb, Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Big Ben, Vince Young, Phillip Rivers, Jay Cutler, and Aaron Rodgers.... a few reasons to pick a QB early.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-10-2009, 12:41 AM
Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, Donovan McNabb, Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Big Ben, Vince Young, Phillip Rivers, Jay Cutler, and Aaron Rodgers.... a few reasons to pick a QB early.

And one BIG reason not to trade for one.

Thumper
12-10-2009, 12:46 AM
And one BIG reason not to trade for one.

It isn't his fault, he was a beast in Denver and then suddenly he dropped in Chicago. Jay Cutler is IMO still very good but this season he is just forcing the issue too much. Isn't it crazy how he can be on the verge of greatness on one team and a complete bust on the other? I doubt it is Cutler because he is as physically talented as they come, something tells me the fact that he has no offensive line, no running game, no consistent receiver combined with the fact that he has inept coaching has a lot to do with Cutler's problems.

TonyGfortheTD
12-10-2009, 12:51 AM
If you don't have a solid franchise QB already in place with plenty of tread left, you take the opportunity to get one whenever you're in an situation to get the guy you think can lead the team. If you still have bad players on the field or an old QB still producing, you don't have to force new QB in as a starter.

The Packers had the right idea on how to handle the QB position and will reap the rewards of it for several years.

TACKLE
12-10-2009, 01:05 AM
It isn't his fault, he was a beast in Denver and then suddenly he dropped in Chicago. Jay Cutler is IMO still very good but this season he is just forcing the issue too much. Isn't it crazy how he can be on the verge of greatness on one team and a complete bust on the other? I doubt it is Cutler because he is as physically talented as they come, something tells me the fact that he has no offensive line, no running game, no consistent receiver combined with the fact that he has inept coaching has a lot to do with Cutler's problems.

The situation a QB is in has a huge impact on how successful he will be.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-10-2009, 01:08 AM
Cutler's regressed. A lot. He had no OL and little at WR outside of Javon Walker and two rookies with no defense as a rookie and still looked much better than this.

Prophet
12-10-2009, 01:27 AM
The Packers had the right idea on how to handle the QB position and will reap the rewards of it for several years.

Completely agree. GB brought Rodgers in the right way, had more teams followed the Packers model we would potentially see more successes than busts. Also refer to Rivers in SD.
Everyone knows guys like Ryan and Flacco benefited immensely from taking over teams with strong defences and run games. Throwing a guy into the slaughterhouse as a rookie is a recipie for ruining your "franchise" guy.

Iamcanadian
12-10-2009, 07:50 AM
First I'd like to repeat that the top 5 offensive teams in the NFL have a 41-8 record according to Pat Kirwin. The top 5 defensive teams only have a 32-24 record. If you want to be a championship team in the modern era, you have to have a franchise QB.
Knowing that how can anybody say that they wouldn't draft a potential franchise QB if they needed one and one was available when they draft.
Teams that draft #1 overall are not good football teams, they basically stink so according to those who say don't draft a QB if your team stinks, they would have passed on Peyton. Peyton went 3-13 in his rookie year, it didn't ruin him or cause him to fail, why, because like all great QB's he is mentally tough and isn't bothered by getting sacked. QB's who flop aren't mentally tough and fold under pressure and let it bother their game. They aren't ever going to be successful QB's no matter what team drafts them.
For those who say sit a QB like Green Bay sat Rodgers, well not every team has a Favre to lead them while a young QB develops. Teams drafting #1 overall, simply don't have a quality QB to lead them while they develop their rookie QB. Usually the rookie QB is all they have. they have usually 2 choices, play him right away or sit him for half a year to get him used to the speed of the game then start him. Either system has been very successful over the years at producing successful QB.
The better GM's have far greater success rates than the weaker GM's because they can assess talent. Nobody knows 100% if a QB will succeed or fail. People talk about Peyton like he was some sure thing, well he wasn't and not everybody thought he should be the #1 overall pick. Quite a few GM's preferred Leaf. In retrospect, people say only draft QB's like Peyton which is utter nonsense since nobody was sure he would succeed and probably plenty of people were lined up after his 3-13 rookie year to say I told you not to draft a QB just like they continue to say today.
The fact is you cannot be a champion in the NFL today where offense dominates defense without a franchise QB. They usually take about 3 years to reach their full potential. If you pass on one, you are saying to your fans that the best they can hope for is that we might be competitive in 4 years if we decide to draft a QB next year, provided we are lucky enough to find one again available when we draft. If not then the wait can turn easily into 5, 6, 7, 8, or even 10 years. If your team's GM passes on a potential franchise QB when your team doesn't have one, you know you have an idiot for a GM and that your team has zero chance to be competitive for many years to come.
Yeah, but QB's flop and it sets your franchise back for years. Well, when your QB flops, you go back and draft another one till you get it right. San Diego drafted Leaf but went back and selected Rivers and they are doing just fine. Cincy drafted Akili Smith and went back and drafted Palmer. Baltimore drafted Boller and went back and got Flacco, Atlanta got stuck with Vick and went back and got Ryan, and Indy drafted Jeff George and went back and drafted Peyton. If you get it wrong, you just keep going back till you get it right because that is the only way in today's game that you can be really successful.

umphrey
12-10-2009, 10:31 AM
Because QB prospects have higher bust rates than any other position and the #1 pick comes with so much guaranteed cash that a miss is often a multiple year setback, especially when it's a QB who usually gets 3 years as the "franchise quarterback" no matter how bad he plays, thus blocking the organization from bringing in someone else.

BGB
12-10-2009, 11:20 AM
The bottom line for a fan is if your team is good at scouting and drafting you should be thrilled with a QB early. If they are not you should be very nervous. It's not easy to know how a player at any position is going to transition to the NFL but it's even more difficult trying to figure out a QB.

As I fan I would much rather see my team take a shot at a top notch QB, and go down swinging if they miss, then play it "safe" and draft some guy that's never going to be the difference between a SB and an 8 win season.

DeathbyStat
12-10-2009, 11:25 AM
If all things are equal you take the QB.....but if you a guy like Suh rated over all the other QB's you take him.

QB is the most important position but you go best player available

BGB
12-10-2009, 11:29 AM
Because QB prospects have higher bust rates than any other position and the #1 pick comes with so much guaranteed cash that a miss is often a multiple year setback, especially when it's a QB who usually gets 3 years as the "franchise quarterback" no matter how bad he plays, thus blocking the organization from bringing in someone else.

I dont really agree that QB bust rates are that much higher then any other position. They just have a greater spotlight on them and there really is no middle ground with a QB. Either they are great or they need to be replaced. Average fans dont care and probably dont know when a prospect like Glenn Dorsey busts but when it's a QB like Jamarcus Russel he's the biggest bust in the history of busts.

keylime_5
12-10-2009, 11:39 AM
Oh I would be perfectly fine taking a QB this year if we didn't have a former first rounder who might still be a franchise QB in Brady Quinn already. But to answer your question, for every Peyton Manning and Philip Rivers and Matt Ryan there are about 3 or 4 JaMarcus Russells and David Carrs and Tim Couchs, etc. I remember in 2004 everyone wanted Manning, Rivers, and Roethlisberger. People didn't seem to have the same intrigue with guys like ALex Smith, JaMarcus RUssell, Joey Harrington, Matt Stafford, and Matt Ryan (one they were wrong on).

JDB7821
12-10-2009, 12:00 PM
Oh, I remember the days of Falcons fans BEGGING for Glenn Dorsey over Matt Ryan... :)

I was one wanting Jake Long over Matt Ryan and I have to admit, I liked Chad Henne more. The Dolphins actually did what I wanted the Falcons to do. It's too early to tell who was right, but I pray beyond praying that Matt comes back and hits his stride from last year.

Dorsey on the other hand, I am not surprised at his situation. I don't get to watch as much as you do Scott, but I watched two games of Jake Long's and two of Dorsey's against the same opponents (Florida and Ohio State, if I'm not mistaken) and came away MUCH more impressed with Jake Long.

Prophet
12-10-2009, 12:05 PM
People didn't seem to have the same intrigue with guys like ALex Smith, JaMarcus RUssell, Joey Harrington, Matt Stafford, and Matt Ryan (one they were wrong on).


Whats ironic is that the 03 QB class (Palmer/Leftwich/Boller/Grossman) was supposed to be better than the 04 (Manning/Rivers/Roeth). 03 was supposed to be the best QB year since 83 (Elway/Kelly/Marino), come to find out the next year could ultimatly be one of the best of all time.

MidwayMonster31
12-10-2009, 12:37 PM
Cutler's regressed. A lot. He had no OL and little at WR outside of Javon Walker and two rookies with no defense as a rookie and still looked much better than this.Which goes to show you what ****** coaching and an offense that exploits weaknesses and rarely uses strengths can do to a good talent.

descendency
12-10-2009, 12:40 PM
Because QB prospects have higher bust rates than any other position and the #1 pick comes with so much guaranteed cash that a miss is often a multiple year setback, especially when it's a QB who usually gets 3 years as the "franchise quarterback" no matter how bad he plays, thus blocking the organization from bringing in someone else.

Do you know what the success rate for a QB in round 2 and later? It's worse.

CC.SD
12-10-2009, 01:54 PM
Not everybody is high on every QB and drafting the wrong one can seriously **** up your franchise so there's something to be said for wanting blue chip players at other crucial positions.

SenorGato
12-10-2009, 03:54 PM
Unless you all ready have the pieces in place there is a good chance you are just setting you're QB up to fail.

+1

QB is a very, very delicate position, and I prefer teams do what my Jets did. Trade up once you have everything BUT a QB on offense....or just find a QB once you've built your offense (Pats, Cowboys).

DiG
12-10-2009, 04:04 PM
if i thought one of this years top qbs was a franchise saving premiere qb than yes by all means please draft him. with that said, i have no confidence right now that bradford, clausen, or locker are that guy.

vidae
12-10-2009, 04:26 PM
There are only a handful of QBs drafted in the last decade I'd consider franchise and a lot drafted I'd consider busts.

vikes_28
12-10-2009, 04:39 PM
There is a reason you see DE, DT, QB, RB, T's going in the top ten. They are all franchise positions. That is why in my most current mock, I have Eric Berry falling to #10. Because I don't believe that they can make as much of a difference as the positions I just listed. They will have impact, but they will not have as much impact as a DE, DT, QB, RB or T. Look at what Adrian Peterson did the year after he was drafted. Helped the Vikings get to an 8-8 record. Matt Ryan led the Falcons all the way through the season and barely missed the playoffs. A tackle like Andre Smith provides the protection a young QB needs.

JRTPlaya21
12-10-2009, 05:11 PM
Umm vikes, Matt Ryan got the Falcons to the playoffs...

descendency
12-10-2009, 05:21 PM
Umm vikes, Matt Ryan got the Falcons to the playoffs...

So did Joe Flacco.

j05son
12-10-2009, 05:30 PM
The reason I don't want a QB currently for the Cleveland Browns...

In the last three games started, Brady Quinn played the Detroit Lions, Cincinnati Bengals and the San Diego Chargers. Quinn's stats during those 3 weeks are:

675 passing yards
7 passing touchdowns
0 interceptions
93.4 quarterback rating
converted 45% on third downs
126 passing attempts without an interception (2nd longest currently in the NFL)
54.5% completion percentage
22 rushing yards on 6 carries
1 rushing touchdown
1 fumble lost (Phillips forced it)
times sacked = 4 (Larry Foote 1, Trent 1, Phillips 1, Harris 1).

The offense around Quinn is a third string RB in Harrison only playing because Lewis and Davis are on the IR and his backup (Jennings) is cutting into his PT even though he was cut from the CFL. Our WR's are a rookie and a special teams ace, our biggest contributing TE looks to be a guy signed off the practice squad in Evan Moore and the right side of the offensive line (St. Clair at RT and a revolving door at RG) has consistently been a let down.

Quinn has less career starts (10) than Mark Sanchez (12) and is starting to play really well especially when there is an obvious talent differential between us and any of our opponents (we were underdogs against every team we've played including Detroit).

RealityCheck
12-10-2009, 06:43 PM
Yeah, what a year to have a post like this. When you have 6 first round QB's?

Very good read descendency.

JRTPlaya21
12-10-2009, 07:08 PM
So did Joe Flacco.

Oh I know. I was just correcting him for saying that the Falcons missed the playoffs.

vikes_28
12-10-2009, 10:59 PM
Umm vikes, Matt Ryan got the Falcons to the playoffs...

You're right. My bad. Brainfart.

Flyboy
12-11-2009, 01:53 AM
I think it totally depends on the teams' need. I'm usually always on the bandwagon of BPA.

Paranoidmoonduck
12-11-2009, 04:22 AM
Because not all quarterback prospects are created equal.

Overall, while the financial investment in a top 10 pick QB is not all that much inflated versus any other top 10 pick, the investment by the team is greater. Teams will take much longer to replace a failing first round quarterback and will likely have tried to build their team around that prospect. The fallout from that is ugly, far more so than the fallout from any other position.

It's easy to make an argument for taking a quarterback high if you only list the guys who have been demonstrative successes. When Oakland had the #1 pick in 2007, I was firmly in favor of taking Calvin Johnson, who was widely acknowledged as the best overall player in the draft, and who played what you call an "inferior position". I still feel that would have been the correct move to make.

Saints-Tigers
12-11-2009, 06:00 AM
Because not all quarterback prospects are created equal.



This. If Peyton Manning or Carson Palmer are in the draft every year, you'd have a point. But sometimes you are choosing between Alex Smith and Aaron Rodgers, both of whom needed big time development time, and teams with the first pick can't afford that a lot of the time, and instead of falling into a good situation like Aaron, your QB gets messed up.

Now I don't think Smith was ever a pro bowl caliber QB to be honest, but I think Rodgers would be regarded as a bust if he had gone to SF.

SRogers92
12-11-2009, 12:24 PM
I'm going to chime in on two things.

1) Brady Quinn is not a franchise QB. He's bad. Playing good in a very select few games(particularly against bad D's) does not make you a good player.

2) As a Lions fans, I'm so glad we took Matthew Stafford last season. Otherwise, we'd be stuck with one of these inferior prospects as our #1 pick and Stafford has played pretty darn good despite very little help and injuries.

2 Live Crew
12-11-2009, 01:13 PM
I'm going to chime in on two things.

1) Brady Quinn is not a franchise QB. He's bad. Playing good in a very select few games(particularly against bad D's) does not make you a good player.


Playing bad for some games at the start of your career with a below average supporting cast means you are bad and destined for failure?

Crickett
12-11-2009, 02:02 PM
Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, Donovan McNabb, Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Big Ben, Vince Young, Phillip Rivers, Jay Cutler, and Aaron Rodgers.... a few reasons to pick a QB early.

Actually, a few of those are reasons not to always draft a QB early.

Specifically, Phillip Rivers and Jay Cutler.

Jay Cutler in Denver vs. Jay Cutler in Chicago is a perfect microcosm of what happens when you have a surrounding cast around a franchise quarterback and what happens when you don't.

Phillip Rivers is starting in San Diego because he had been signed to such a large contract that San Diego could not afford to keep Drew Brees. Imagine if the Chargers traded for the #4 pick and drafted Sean Taylor instead. This is a bit of a sore subject for me because I was adamant prior and during the 2004 draft that the Chargers didn't need a quarterback, but to get the quarterback they had a better surrounding cast.

A perfect example of that was the Chargers starting offensive line of the 2003 San Diego Chargers and how many of them were still in the league by the start of 2005.

descendency
12-11-2009, 02:42 PM
Actually, a few of those are reasons not to always draft a QB early.

Specifically, Phillip Rivers and Jay Cutler.

Jay Cutler in Denver vs. Jay Cutler in Chicago is a perfect microcosm of what happens when you have a surrounding cast around a franchise quarterback and what happens when you don't.

Phillip Rivers is starting in San Diego because he had been signed to such a large contract that San Diego could not afford to keep Drew Brees. Imagine if the Chargers traded for the #4 pick and drafted Sean Taylor instead. This is a bit of a sore subject for me because I was adamant prior and during the 2004 draft that the Chargers didn't need a quarterback, but to get the quarterback they had a better surrounding cast.

A perfect example of that was the Chargers starting offensive line of the 2003 San Diego Chargers and how many of them were still in the league by the start of 2005.

Then again Brees started to play better after Rivers got to San Diego. Rivers is a good QB though. Just because a team with a good QB already drafted him does not make him a bad pick. Obviously, I'm not saying Tampa should go after a QB. Brady Quinn is two administrations old (if Mangini is fired), so I wonder how much he will stay around.

Prophet
12-11-2009, 03:00 PM
Then again Brees started to play better after Rivers got to San Diego. Rivers is a good QB though. Just because a team with a good QB already drafted him does not make him a bad pick. Obviously, I'm not saying Tampa should go after a QB. Brady Quinn is two administrations old (if Mangini is fired), so I wonder how much he will stay around.

Brees' ineffectiveness was the reason SD drafted Rivers in the first place. He only started playing lights out in 04 (Rivers rookie season). SD was in a bind b/c Brees came on strong and they didn't wonna be playing their QB of the future to ride the bench. They gave him the one year deal then decided to go with Rivers.
I would like to see Quinn get a shot elsewhere.

jimbo
12-11-2009, 05:11 PM
It's easy to look back now and say picking Rivers was a possible mistake, but the fact remains that Brees had shown little in the seasons leading up to that draft to make SD think he could be a franchise or elite QB.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-11-2009, 05:23 PM
I don't see any argument that drafting Rivers could have been a mistake. Brees was doing nothing there, and Rivers has become a top 5 QB in his own right. He is the real deal. And a douchebag.

Also with Quinn, whether he has bad numbers or good ones in a game makes ZERO difference to me. Because I still have not seen one instance of him making a play under pressure or making the kinds of game winning throws that are necessary to conistently win games. His yards per attempt is ABYSMAL as is his comp%. Any time he tries to throw very far, it's about 5 yards off the target. The only deep balls I've seen him complete all season is when Massaquoi is literally wide open by 20 yards. They put Cribbs at QB last night on a key 3rd and long in the 4th Q last night trying to kill the clock. That should tell you all you need to know about Brady Quinn.

PoopSandwich
12-11-2009, 05:33 PM
Browns cant afford to go QB, they need to see what they have in Quinn and if they dont like him get a vet. This team needs to learn how to build around the QB and maintain it... Our best year we had Jurevicius Edwards and Winslow around the QB as well as a good version of Jamal lewis and a good line.

wonderbredd24
12-11-2009, 05:49 PM
Let's assume Brady Quinn is a complete and utter slapdick behind center and depending on who you talk to, some believe he is. I think he can play in this league, but he needs help.

The Browns have nothing on the right side of the line. Heath Miller, at tight end, looks like a Pro Bowl right tackle compared to John St. Clair.

The Browns have no one at running back worth a damn thus far. James Davis went down for the year, Jamal Lewis is on his way to the glue factory, Jerome Harrison is a 3rd down back at best, and Chris Jennings is pitifully slow.

But don't worry, at least said QB has great weapons to throw to like rookies Mohammed Massaquoi, who actually looks promising, Brian Robiskie, who has really struggled this year to even see the field, Josh Cribbs, who might be a great returner and wildcat QB but is a terrible receiver, and their best tight end is Evan Moore, who was grabbed off of Green Bay's practice squad 2 weeks ago.

Yes, the Browns can attack some of these positions later on in the draft while landing a franchise QB, but then you again are counting on rookies to make a meaningful contribution, which is never a good idea.

In addition to that, I personally don't like this QB class. Jake Locker has fantastic physical tools, but he's still raw and he's the best option out there. Jimmy Clausen, in my opinion, is not as good as Quinn as a prospect. Yes, he has a better arm, but Quinn had more starts, has a far higher QB IQ, is a leader and did more winning at Notre Dame. Sam Bradford looks decent, but after that, this QB class is **** if you ask me.

Get your offense some help before throwing a QB into the proverbial blender. Tim Couch and David Carr showed everyone what happens when you put a QB behind horrid blocking with no running game, and no weapons

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-11-2009, 05:55 PM
As bad as Quinn is, I do think the Browns need to look elsewhere with their first pick. I really don't like any QBs at the top of this draft except maybe Sam Bradford.

wonderbredd24
12-11-2009, 05:57 PM
As bad as Quinn is, I do think the Browns need to look elsewhere with their first pick. I really don't like any QBs at the top of this draft except maybe Sam Bradford.

He's not bad. 7 TDs, 0 INTs his last 4 games and the Browns could have won 3 of those games.

brat316
12-11-2009, 06:00 PM
I don't know why Chicago doesn't run it more. They have become pass first team. Looks last year what Forte did, why leave that.


Also Oakland Raiders, Browns, Titans, Cards drafted Franchise Qbs and failed. Titans and Cards changed Qbs later. I'm with draft a franchise qb, just make sure he doesn't have any major flaws, unless you have time to sit them. Which doesn't work out when you throw money at them, people want to see them preform even if they are not ready.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-11-2009, 06:07 PM
He's not bad. 7 TDs, 0 INTs his last 4 games and the Browns could have won 3 of those games.

Like I said in my above post, I'm judging by what I've seen, and not numbers. He isn't turning the ball over, but he isn't making any sorts of good plays under pressure(important if you're gonna be a top 10 QB), has no accuracy down the field, and seems afraid of throwing it deep unless Massaquoi is 10 yards past the secondary. I'd take guys like Stafford and Sanchez, who are struggling with INTs, over him at this point, because they seem to have it in them to be good QBs once they get over the INT issues. I've rarely seen BQ actually even try to throw it into a tight window. He's had two good games in the last four and one of them was against the Lions.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-11-2009, 06:08 PM
I don't know why Chicago doesn't run it more. They have become pass first team. Looks last year what Forte did, why leave that.


Also Oakland Raiders, Browns, Titans, Cards drafted Franchise Qbs and failed. Titans and Cards changed Qbs later. I'm with draft a franchise qb, just make sure he doesn't have any major flaws, unless you have time to sit them. Which doesn't work out when you throw money at them, people want to see them preform even if they are not ready.

They can't run the ball this year. If they tried to be a running team, they'd be even worse.

Cicero
12-11-2009, 06:46 PM
They can't run the ball this year. If they tried to be a running team, they'd be even worse.

True story. Every possession would be a 3 and out.

brat316
12-11-2009, 07:27 PM
that is true I guess their line is just a mess..I thought Chris Williams was going to be a good one.