PDA

View Full Version : Multiple teams about to repeat the mistake of passing on a QB in the first?


Halsey
03-25-2010, 05:19 AM
I keep reading and hearing that teams like Washington, Seattle and Cleveland could potentially pass on a chance to take Clausen, if he's there when they pick. I just can't help but wonder if they will be making the same mistake as teams who passed on a chance to take someone like Matt Ryan, Mark Sanchez, Josh Freeman, and Joe Flacco. Yeah, there are questions about Clausen, but there were questions about those guys too. How much better off would a team like Cleveland be if they had taken Sanchez or Freeman when they had the chance last year. The Browns could have done the trade down with Jets last year and still taken Freeman...but they chose to trade down again. Now they have Jake Delhomme and Seneca Wallace.

Matthew Jones
03-25-2010, 05:30 AM
I don't think the Seahawks or Browns will take Clausen. Pete Carroll still has Matt Hasselbeck (who could still be a good quarterback again in my opinion), and he just traded a third-round pick for Charlie Whitehurst, so he's got to think pretty highly of him. They got their quarterbacks, now they can worry about addressing needs on both the offensive and defensive lines, as well as in the secondary. Mike Holmgren pretty much flat-out said that he wasn't really that high on Clausen, and he did just trade for Seneca Wallace and sign Jake Delhomme. I guess he's going to wait a little bit longer. Ultimately it's looking like Clausen will be going to Buffalo, with an outside shot of going to Washington.

Razor
03-25-2010, 06:51 AM
I would hate Clausen if he went to Buffalo. I think that Clausen is going to have the better NFL career of the top QBs this year. Clausen didn't play on a very good team and it was a pro style offense. While Bradford has all the talent in the world, he'll have to adjust and that can't be done before the season starts. Clausen has the tools to be a legitimate franchise QB, and I hope that the 'Skins pick him even though that looks unlikely at this point.

DiG
03-25-2010, 08:02 AM
I keep reading and hearing that teams like Washington, Seattle and Cleveland could potentially pass on a chance to take Clausen, if he's there when they pick. I just can't help but wonder if they will be making the same mistake as teams who passed on a chance to take someone like Matt Ryan, Mark Sanchez, Josh Freeman, and Joe Flacco. Yeah, there are questions about Clausen, but there were questions about those guys too. How much better off would a team like Cleveland be if they had taken Sanchez or Freeman when they had the chance last year. The Browns could have done the trade down with Jets last year and still taken Freeman...but they chose to trade down again. Now they have Jake Delhomme and Seneca Wallace.

If you honestly put Clausen in the same class as Ryan or Sanchez than you take him with your pick BUT you cant compare him with Quinn, Freeman, and Flacco and expect the Skins, or even Seattle and Cleveland to take him in the top 5-7. Theres a reason those guys didnt go until the late teens/early twenties. Your paying a top 5-7 pick a TON of money and if you take a qb with that pick he needs to be a top prospect with a full rounded game. Now everyone sees these guys differently but I dont put Clausen in that category. His value is right in the late teens/early twenties range but he would be an overpaid reach pick in the top 7. Now will one of those teams trade up into the mid first area if hes still there? They should and I think likely would. I would say Seattles 14th overall is perfect value but with them bringing in Whitehurst Im not sure they want to draft a qb that early.

yourfavestoner
03-25-2010, 10:32 AM
I keep reading and hearing that teams like Washington, Seattle and Cleveland could potentially pass on a chance to take Clausen, if he's there when they pick. I just can't help but wonder if they will be making the same mistake as teams who passed on a chance to take someone like Matt Ryan, Mark Sanchez, Josh Freeman, and Joe Flacco. Yeah, there are questions about Clausen, but there were questions about those guys too. How much better off would a team like Cleveland be if they had taken Sanchez or Freeman when they had the chance last year. The Browns could have done the trade down with Jets last year and still taken Freeman...but they chose to trade down again. Now they have Jake Delhomme and Seneca Wallace.

Completely agree.

This is completely anecdotal (and if somebody wants to crunch the numbers, be my guest). But I think the percentage of QBs taken in the first round who succeed is starting to get better. The rules changes have made it to the point where it's almost impossible NOT to succeed as a quarterback. Hell, we've seen three of the best rookie seasons in NFL history in the past few years (Roethlisberger, Ryan, and Flacco).

J-Mike88
03-25-2010, 10:43 AM
Don't be fooled by past history. Sometimes it will cause some errors in judgment. The only reason why so many teams passed on Aaron Rodgers was because of the previous failures of Jeff Tedford-coached QB's. Rodgers wasn't them, but teams, and many fans, still dissed him for that. Just because Matt Ryan was so good as a rookie doesn't mean Stafford or Sanchez or Freeman is going to me. Totally irrelevant, but the NFL is a copycat league and that often leads to mistakes.

Alex Smith, Brady Quinn, David Carr, Ryan Leaf, Byron Leftwich, Akili Smith, Cde McNown, Wrecks Grossman, Kyle Baller, JP Losman, Vince Young, Jason Campbell, Tim Couch, Heath Shuler, Matt Leinart.... it all depends on how good the guy really is.

Teams overrate QB's as much as any other position, while at the same time you get your Warner's and Brees and Favre's and Brady's and Romo's or Schuab's who were either undrafted, or drafted after round one.

A team does need a good-great QB to be good though, there's no doubt there. It just depends how good you think Clausen and Bradford are. I don't see any greatness in either guy, personally.
I watched the OU vs Texas games and was just as impressed, if not more, with Colt McCoy than I was with Sam Bradford, and Bradford was behind the better OL usually.

Is it Sam's 6-4 vs McCoy's 6-2 that makes everyone love Sam more than Colt? Or does Sam have a better fastball?
I know that in the 1991 draft, Seattle was trying to decide between two QBs, and they simply chose Dan McGwire over the other guy because Dan was bigger, taller. That other guy was Brett Favre.

I'll take the shorter Drew Brees over the taller Jamarcus Russell any day, even though Russell's arm is also stronger. He's bigger, taller and has a stronger arm. JaMarcus must be better.

I still think the Rams should, without question, take nDominator Suh because he's the best player, and least risky pick. Best and surest. Take him. Any Rams fans here? What do you think? Are you guys split on that?

Scott Wright
03-25-2010, 10:44 AM
There is a reason many of the same teams are picking in the Top 10 on a regular basis.

yourfavestoner
03-25-2010, 10:46 AM
There is a reason many of the same teams are picking in the Top 10 on a regular basis.

Because picking DTs, WRs, OTs and the like before you have a quarterback is like a business hiring the best IT guy in the ******* world before having a CEO.

SuperMcGee
03-25-2010, 10:49 AM
I sure hope so. Jimmy at 9 would be sa-weet.

Halsey
03-25-2010, 10:53 AM
There is a reason many of the same teams are picking in the Top 10 on a regular basis.

I'd be interested to hear or read your take on why there continues to be signs that teams like Washington and Cleveland are not going to take Clausen. Yeah, I know they may be misleading people, but let's just assume for now that they're truly not interested in Clausen. Why is it that some people see Clausen as the #1 QB prospect while others think he's a late first rounder or second rounder. It can't be all about his personality. You'd think these teams would realize they need to take a shot at a talented QB and just accept that every QB prospect has questions. Clausen must have kicked someone's dog or something.

SenorGato
03-25-2010, 11:09 AM
Completely agree.

This is completely anecdotal (and if somebody wants to crunch the numbers, be my guest). But I think the percentage of QBs taken in the first round who succeed is starting to get better. The rules changes have made it to the point where it's almost impossible NOT to succeed as a quarterback. Hell, we've seen three of the best rookie seasons in NFL history in the past few years (Roethlisberger, Ryan, and Flacco).

+1

Just wanted to do that because I completely agree with that statement and I see it as a major development in the sport. QB's have it easy nowadays...remember when QBs were magical beings with the will and power of the gods...molded from Zeus himself?

NGSeiler
03-25-2010, 11:17 AM
How much better off would a team like Cleveland be if they had taken Sanchez or Freeman when they had the chance last year.

Who knows. But here's one we do know - how much better off were the Browns when they moved back into the first round to draft Brady Quinn in 2007?

If NFL teams don't think Clausen is going to be that guy for whatever reason, and it really sounds like the NFL isn't as high on Jimmy as draftniks and fans are, then obviously they're not going to spend a high first round pick on him. I don't see why that's so outrageous.

Your post brings up Josh Freeman and Joe Flacco, but they were taken 17th and 18th respectively. So it's not as NFL teams propelled them to the top of their boards simply because they were quarterbacks. Value is still a consideration, and it doesn't sound as if the NFL is as high on Clausen as others are.

If Jimmy turns into a world beater, then other teams may indeed kick themselves for passing on him. But if his career is closer to that of Quinn, or Russell, or Smith, or Carr, etc etc, then I don't think anyone will view the decision to pass as a mistake.

There is a reason many of the same teams are picking in the Top 10 on a regular basis.

There are multiple reasons why some of the same teams are picking in the Top Ten on a regular basis, though. Instability at QB is very likely one of the big ones, but the mere act of selecting a Top Ten QB doesn't change that. The guy actually has to develop into "the guy" and solve that problem with his play. If he doesn't, then said team is probably still going to be picking in the top ten (ala Detroit from '03 to '07).

fear the elf
03-25-2010, 11:26 AM
Because picking DTs, WRs, OTs and the like before you have a quarterback is like a business hiring the best IT guy in the ******* world before having a CEO.

What good is a CEO if all of your business critical data is compromised by poor networking security practices?

Everyone knows QB is the most important position, but you can't just draft a QB with no other pieces in place. I'm not gonna say you need to build the team first or picking the QB is always the way to go. I think finding the balance of enough talent around him and the right guy at QB is the only way it can ever be successful.

Babylon
03-25-2010, 11:32 AM
I don't think the Seahawks or Browns will take Clausen. Pete Carroll still has Matt Hasselbeck (who could still be a good quarterback again in my opinion), and he just traded a third-round pick for Charlie Whitehurst, so he's got to think pretty highly of him. They got their quarterbacks, now they can worry about addressing needs on both the offensive and defensive lines, as well as in the secondary. Mike Holmgren pretty much flat-out said that he wasn't really that high on Clausen, and he did just trade for Seneca Wallace and sign Jake Delhomme. I guess he's going to wait a little bit longer. Ultimately it's looking like Clausen will be going to Buffalo, with an outside shot of going to Washington.

Good analysis on Seattle. I think if Bradford were there they would take him and if Stafford and Sanchez were there this year for them they would take them. I'm not down on Jimmy Clausen, i think he'll be first round pick, but i wouldnt take him in the top 14 picks.

Saints-Tigers
03-25-2010, 11:33 AM
Because Sanchez is clearly the reason the Jets went from 9-7 to 9-7, despite getting a lot more talented, and better coaching.

This thread is total crap, because if Sanchez and Matt Ryan never improve from where they are at this point, they aren't making anyone lose sleep, so you're banking all of this on them becoming stud QBs.

And if they felt that Bradford or Clausen were going to be pro bowl QBs, they'd be taking them no doubt.

DeepThreat
03-25-2010, 11:40 AM
There is a reason many of the same teams are picking in the Top 10 on a regular basis.

Part of it is taking crappy QB's way too high. Brady Quinn didn't make the Browns a winner, and David Carr didn't make the Texans good.

Crickett
03-25-2010, 11:43 AM
I keep reading and hearing that teams like Washington, Seattle and Cleveland could potentially pass on a chance to take Clausen, if he's there when they pick. I just can't help but wonder if they will be making the same mistake as teams who passed on a chance to take someone like Matt Ryan, Mark Sanchez, Josh Freeman, and Joe Flacco. Yeah, there are questions about Clausen, but there were questions about those guys too. How much better off would a team like Cleveland be if they had taken Sanchez or Freeman when they had the chance last year. The Browns could have done the trade down with Jets last year and still taken Freeman...but they chose to trade down again. Now they have Jake Delhomme and Seneca Wallace.



Comp Att Pct Yds Avg TD Int Sck SckY Rate Att Yds Avg TD FUM Los
2009 New York Jets 15 15 196 364 53.8 2,444 6.7 12 20 26 195 63.0 36 106 2.9 3 10 3

2009 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 10 9 158 290 54.5 1,855 6.4 10 18 20 102 59.8 30 161 5.4 0 10 2

In the long run, maybe the Brown might have been better, but last year, no, I don't think they would have been better. Even slightly better with the skill position players they had on offense. Any rookie quarterback they put in there would have been set up to fail after unloading both of their top receiving options. To me, it was a much bigger mistake for the Cleveland Browns to not draft a playermaker like Jeremy Maclin, Percy Harvin, Kenny Britt, Hakeem Nicks or Donald Brown and instead waiting until the second round to draft their wide receivers. To me, that was a much bigger mistake than not drafting a quarterback in the first round for the second time in three years.



And I've never subscribed to the theory that if you can get a potential franchise quarterback, that you absolutely have to. After leading LSU to a national championship and having the once in a generation arm you see every two or three years, the Raiders made a monumental mistake drafting potential franchise quarterback JaMarcus Russell ahead of probably the best receiver prospect ever, Calvin Johnson.

scottyboy
03-25-2010, 11:51 AM
well part of it with a team like the redskins is: that OL is soooo bad, bradford or clausen would suffer epic david carr syndrome of just getting destroyed. also, campbell's not that bad a QB. a team like the skins needs an OT SOOOOOO badly. that would help them out more than any qb

yourfavestoner
03-25-2010, 11:55 AM
well part of it with a team like the redskins is: that OL is soooo bad, bradford or clausen would suffer epic david carr syndrome of just getting destroyed. also, campbell's not that bad a QB. a team like the skins needs an OT SOOOOOO badly. that would help them out more than any qb

True, but nobody says that you HAVE to start a rookie at quarterback. Let Campbell go out there and get killed until you acquire some better pieces for your new quarterback to succeed with.

Crickett
03-25-2010, 12:00 PM
True, but nobody says that you HAVE to start a rookie at quarterback.

Actually, that's said pretty commonly. Cincinnati made a great decision putting Carson Palmer on the bench as a rookie and keeping him there no matter what. Teams generally don't do that though.

Rosebud
03-25-2010, 12:02 PM
True, but nobody says that you HAVE to start a rookie at quarterback. Let Campbell go out there and get killed until you acquire some better pieces for your new quarterback to succeed with.

It all comes back to whether you think Clausen is going to be that guy, that franchise QB who will give you stability for the next ten years, if not then you pass on him and grab a piece to make a nicer landing spot for the guy you go out and get next year.

V.I.P
03-25-2010, 12:13 PM
Seattle won't go QB Whitehurst is their future... lol

Buffalo's #1 priority(s) should be the o-line, and making the transition to the 3-4 defense. They'll just draft Locker with the first pick in the 2011 draft.

As for Cleveland look at Holmgreen track record i don't think he ever ro a QB in the first record.

DiG
03-25-2010, 12:18 PM
I'd be interested to hear or read your take on why there continues to be signs that teams like Washington and Cleveland are not going to take Clausen. Yeah, I know they may be misleading people, but let's just assume for now that they're truly not interested in Clausen. Why is it that some people see Clausen as the #1 QB prospect while others think he's a late first rounder or second rounder. It can't be all about his personality. You'd think these teams would realize they need to take a shot at a talented QB and just accept that every QB prospect has questions. Clausen must have kicked someone's dog or something.

Im totally with you that you take a premiere qb when you have the opportunity but first you have to value that qb as a premier prospect. if bradford falls to 4, i think the skins will take him without thinking twice because rumor is that shanahan values bradford very highly but if you dont think a guy like clausen is that much better than a guy you can get in the 2nd (mccoy/tebow) than why pay him top 5 money? its all on your scouting/interviews. the theory is right. you take the franchise qb when you can but that doesnt mean you reach for a player that you dont love (ie Holmgren supposedly doesnt see Clausen as a premier prospect)

guys like holmgren and shanahan know their qbs. thats a lot of why they were brought in. if they like clausen, which they may, theyll take him.

Babylon
03-25-2010, 01:15 PM
Seattle won't go QB Whitehurst is their future... lol

Buffalo's #1 priority(s) should be the o-line, and making the transition to the 3-4 defense. They'll just draft Locker with the first pick in the 2011 draft.

As for Cleveland look at Holmgreen track record i don't think he ever ro a QB in the first record.

Funny how your take on Buffalo is my take on Seattle. Charlie Whithurst is a stopgap for them for the next two years, he isnt the answer.

CC.SD
03-25-2010, 01:20 PM
Even teams that have QBs shouldn't pass on QBs, they can be traded later for profitz unless they're from Notre Dame.

BTW passing on Quinn at #3 for Joe Thomas...is this the shrewdest decision in Browns history? You might have to go back to Jim Brown.

bitonti
03-25-2010, 01:39 PM
saying Matt Ryan or Mark Sanchez is a reason never to pass on a QB is like saying Jamarcus Russell and Alex Smith are reason always to pass on a QB.

each player is different, each situation is different.

Morton
03-25-2010, 01:42 PM
Here's the most important part of the equation:

You can almost NEVER find decent quarterbacks past the first round. The chances of finding a reliable starter after round 1 are very, very slim. Drew Brees doesn't count because he, for practical purposes, a first round pick that slipped a tiny bit due to size concerns, but everyone acknowledged his skill as first-round worthy prior to that draft.

Yes, you will find some busts in the first round, but your chances of finding a skilled quarterback OUTSIDE of the first round are much,much slimmer. So if you need a QB, you either grab a highly-rated one or not. If you go for a 2nd/3rd/4th rounder, history is working against you.

STsACE
03-25-2010, 01:48 PM
I keep reading and hearing that teams like Washington, Seattle and Cleveland could potentially pass on a chance to take Clausen, if he's there when they pick. I just can't help but wonder if they will be making the same mistake as teams who passed on a chance to take someone like Matt Ryan, Mark Sanchez, Josh Freeman, and Joe Flacco. Yeah, there are questions about Clausen, but there were questions about those guys too. How much better off would a team like Cleveland be if they had taken Sanchez or Freeman when they had the chance last year. The Browns could have done the trade down with Jets last year and still taken Freeman...but they chose to trade down again. Now they have Jake Delhomme and Seneca Wallace.



With the season Alex Mack had, I'd pass on those 2 in a heartbeat, again. Having a Center that can handle (especially in a 3-4) NTs by themselves, is right up there with having a LT to protect the blindside.

And our season would not have been better. Sanchez would have been a waste for us. He was a good Jets pick, because they had a good running game and good defense. Sanchez isn't a guy you build your team around, rather he's a guy you can plug in when you feel the last real piece is a QB. I view Clausen the same way.

Sanchez barely had better stats than our starting QBs and he had the #1 Rushing game and #1 defense to help cover him. Which was phenomenal, because Sanchez improved their win record by O.

Freeman, didn't exactly turn things around in Tampa. He did show some promise, which should give Tampa fans some hope. He also had Winslow.

Diehard
03-25-2010, 01:55 PM
Even teams that have QBs shouldn't pass on QBs, they can be traded later for profitz unless they're from Notre Dame.

So sayeth the Charger-Man, laughing as he counts his ill-gotten loot from the Seahawks...

I think the best time to take a QB is when you aren't desperate for one - you can be more picky about getting the right value / fit and have the luxury of grooming him behind your veteran starter. That's a win for both the player and the team.

Those guys who get drafted high and immediately thrown into the fire with crappy teams can be ruined without getting a decent chance to realize their potential (see Couch, Tim). Considering how much is invested in these players, it is a little suprising the short-term pressure to win so often trumps the potential longer-term advantage of being conservative with their development.

J-Mike88
03-25-2010, 02:55 PM
Because picking DTs, WRs, OTs and the like before you have a quarterback is like a business hiring the best IT guy in the ******* world before having a CEO.
Exactly.
That's why I respect the teams that are aggressive outside of the draft, and are able to bring in a QB like a Drew Brees, Kurt Warner, Brett Favre, Matt Hasselbeck, even Jay Cutler and Donny McNabb....

Addict
03-25-2010, 03:00 PM
Here's the most important part of the equation:

You can almost NEVER find decent quarterbacks past the first round. The chances of finding a reliable starter after round 1 are very, very slim. Drew Brees doesn't count because he, for practical purposes, a first round pick that slipped a tiny bit due to size concerns, but everyone acknowledged his skill as first-round worthy prior to that draft.

Yes, you will find some busts in the first round, but your chances of finding a skilled quarterback OUTSIDE of the first round are much,much slimmer. So if you need a QB, you either grab a highly-rated one or not. If you go for a 2nd/3rd/4th rounder, history is working against you.

I agree, even though there are a lot of non first rounders starting in the NFL right now, they were usually stumbled upon.

I do want to point out it's funny to me to see you make this point while in another thread you're defending replacing first rounder (McNabb) with a second rounder.

Halsey
03-25-2010, 05:55 PM
People who are arguing that teams shouldn't gamble on QBs because of guys like Brady Quinn are missing an important point: No one draft pick is a jackpot for a franchise like hitting on a long term QB. Missing on a QB in the Draft can set a team back 3-5 years. Hitting on a QB can boost a franchise for 10-15 years. If an NFL team misses on a QB they should step right back up to the plate and swing for the fences again. It's not like teams that are scared to take a chance on a QB are really playing it safe. They are taking the chance that the QB they pass on will be a star for someone else.