Draft Countdown Forums

Draft Countdown Forums (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/index.php)
-   2014 NFL Draft Forum (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=47)
-   -   What Makes a Draft "Deep" at QB? (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52454)

Halsey 04-22-2012 04:12 PM

What Makes a Draft "Deep" at QB?
 
I've been listening and reading to people debating the depth of the 2012 QB crop and found it interesting that many people seem to feel that this is not a "deep" QB class. It makes me wonder if people have inflated expectations for what a "deep" QB class is supposed to be. I believe if you polled NFL fans, most would agree there are somewhere around 15 or so "franchise QBs" in the NFL today. If that's true, it seems reasonable that we should only expect a handful of eventual franchise QBs from any Draft, yet it seems unusual for a Draft to be labeled "deep" at QB, even when there may be 3 or more QBs drafted in the first round, and perhaps a couple more in the second. So I'm curious about what other fans think it takes for a Draft to be deep at QB. A couple of Drafts that I can think of off the top of my head that seem deep in hindsight are 1983 and 2004.

Shane P. Hallam 04-22-2012 04:31 PM

Deep means deep pool of players with tools to develop into a starter I think. I don't think the depth is too bad in this draft for QB though w/ Lindley, Coleman, etc.

niel89 04-22-2012 04:43 PM

This year isn't bad, but I thought last year was outstanding. I think for a draft to be deep there have to be a lot of guys who could potentially become good starters, not Colt McCoy level starter where you are constantly looking to upgrade when possible.

I thought Newton, Gabbert, Locker, Mallett, Ponder, Dalton (on the right team, I especially liked the Bengals predraft) and Kaepernick (with a year or 2 to develop) all could become at least solid starters in the NFL. Most of these guys had awesome raw tools to work with also.

Asteinebach 04-22-2012 05:13 PM

Yeah, I think the lack of depth in this year's class is mostly attributed to the fact that there are only 2 guys who are perceived starters in the NFL. Luck and RGIII are the only guys that will walk into the league with that expectation this year. I don't think the placement has much to do with it, so to speak.

A deep year at draft can see starting QB's come into the league with that expectation even into the late 2nd or 3rd round. Take 2004 for example: 1st round was Rivers/Manning/Roethlisberger/Losman and later on there was good value with Matt Schaub/Josh Harris/Casey Bramlett. All those guys, even the later round ones, were consider very good potential guys.

Comparatively, this year after the big two, you have guys like Tannehill and Osweiler that are going to be projects; guys like Weeden who are too old to begin their Jedi training; guys like Lindley and Cousins who are experienced but average overall from a physical standpoint.

Babylon 04-22-2012 09:48 PM

1983 was the deepest so everything in comparison is secondary. I'd like to see a couple of 3rd rounders who develope into something but the way guys get overvalued at the position that probably isnt going to happen anymore. I'd call this years class average.

Bulldogs 04-22-2012 10:04 PM

I like this year. Hindsight is 20/20, every year people seem to claim that specific class is weak. Andrew Luck and RGIII are the best 1-2 punch since I've started watching the draft in 2004 and Ryan Tannehill is comparable to Jake Locker (who I loved) as a prospect. You also have developmental guys like Brock Osweiler and Weeden the wily old vet.

keylime_5 04-22-2012 10:04 PM

who said this year isn't deep? the first two picks will be QBs, a third one will go top ten, and then there's Weeden, Osweiller, and Cousins who will go in the round 2-3 range, plus Russell Wilson who projects to be a top not career backup QB. This is a very deep QB class.

tjsunstein 04-23-2012 01:29 AM

Its pretty average, not deep nor shallow, to me. Very top heavy and there's only about 9 guys I would draft.

toonsterwu 04-23-2012 02:42 AM

I tend to think this is a top heavy and relatively deep QB draft. Look, QB's are the position where no rules really apply. Teams may grab one in the 2nd/3rd, even if they don't need it, just because.

The top of the this draft is as good as it's been for QB's in awhile. Tannehill might not deserve to be top 10 in some years (although that's debatable), but he's a solid first round QB value type of kid.

"Depth wise", I tend to think a good QB class is one where you have around 4-6 solid candidates in the 2nd-4th rounds. There's always developmental flyers later in every draft. The solid 2nd tier QB's is what usually defines a deep QB class for me, and I think this one has it. It's also an intriguing 2nd tier - there's your prototypical upside pocket passer in Osweiler, your borderline first round polished kid in Weeden (that's not really fair to Weeden's tools, which are fine), the tough kid that gets it done with solid tools (Cousins), and I really don't have a label for Foles, other than he was a guy I really liked once upon a time. I actually still like Foles a fair amount, but here's a kid who really should be on the bench learning for 2, if not 3 years, and I think you really need a good QB coach that has the time to work with him on understanding things. A very boom/bust QB pick.

Oh, there's your small school kid (Coleman), your big star that transferred (Corp - tend to think he's more late round but I'm in the mood for labels right now), and your under-sized, but damn he'd be good if he was a bit taller QB (Wilson).

All in all, this is a very good QB class, IMO, with talent at the top, a good 2nd tier with a different variety of QB's, and enough late round/UDFA gambles. But to each their own, particularly at the QB position.

descendency 04-23-2012 03:29 AM

I'm typically looking for 3-4 first round QBs (immediate starters), 3-4 2nd and 3rd rounders (developmental projects or low upside backups), and maybe 10 from round 4-7 (potential guys but most likely camp arms). Obviously some will feel they are over-drafted, but deep to me means that the general consensus is that is what you have and should have.

Iamcanadian 04-23-2012 05:10 AM

I'd call this class deep myself. 3 first round talents and a bunch of second round guys is about as good as it gets especially when 2 of them will go 1/2 in the draft.

Asteinebach 04-23-2012 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iamcanadian (Post 2961812)
I'd call this class deep myself. 3 first round talents and a bunch of second round guys is about as good as it gets especially when 2 of them will go 1/2 in the draft.

That's where I tend to go off track from the traditional thinking. I think this is a relatively weak QB class, because I don't believe Tannehill is a 1st round prospect. In addition, I'm not entirely sold on Luck and RGIII. I don't think either of them walk in and do what Cam Newton did last year.

TheBoyWonder22 04-23-2012 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asteinebach (Post 2961831)
That's where I tend to go off track from the traditional thinking. I think this is a relatively weak QB class, because I don't believe Tannehill is a 1st round prospect. In addition, I'm not entirely sold on Luck and RGIII. I don't think either of them walk in and do what Cam Newton did last year.

Can anyone? I think it's apparent that Cam Newton just had the best regular season of any rookie ever. If people expect that kind of contribution day one, they'll be disappointed. Griffin has a superior team around him and will probably be pretty successful right away whereas regardless of how good Luck really is, that team has little talent. Both will be solid starters in the league.

Bixby (Thumper) 04-23-2012 07:25 AM

Hm... Probably about 2-3 top guys coupled with another developmental prospect and a handful of good back-up types. Last year's class was really good. This years class is stellar at the top with Luck, Griffin and Tannehill but lacking after that.

Wrathman 04-23-2012 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asteinebach (Post 2961831)
That's where I tend to go off track from the traditional thinking. I think this is a relatively weak QB class, because I don't believe Tannehill is a 1st round prospect. In addition, I'm not entirely sold on Luck and RGIII. I don't think either of them walk in and do what Cam Newton did last year.

Nobody should be expecting any rookie to walk in and do what Cam did last year; it's unrealistic. Personally, I start getting critical on what rookie QBs are doing in their third year.

tjsunstein 04-23-2012 08:30 PM

Please, lets not make Newton the standard when we all know that 90% of these QBs drafted every year are better served holding the clipboardmfor a year or two.

BigBanger 04-24-2012 07:42 PM

I would say that any more than 1 potential franchise QB makes it a deep draft. If anyone really cares about the quality of second and third rounders then so be it. But having quality backups to choose from doesn't make me think the QB class is anything special. It's all about the 1st round QBs. This class has 2 franchise guys. That's solid. '04 was the best QB class I've seen. Thats a pretty rare class. All 3 first rounders were legit and then the Falcons hit on a 3rd rounder. But the 1st rounders made the class. Nobody remembers the depth of that class. Mid to late rounds is not were you find franchise QBs. Some teams just get lucky and find a Tom Brady that develops into a star after looking average in college. Franchise QBs need to have franchise talent. You get those guys in the first round. Depth is meaningless for the QB position.

mightytitan9 04-24-2012 08:12 PM

Usually for me for a position to be defined as deep it needs to have players in the 3rd and 4th rounds that can be very good starters in the league.

For QB, it's a little different because there's only so many jobs open and a guy can honestly last 15 years if he stays healthy, which at QB is one of the easiest positions other than K and P.

So for me, a deep QB class usually means there's 3+ 1st rounder caliber QB's that would be given 1st round status in most years.

PossibleCabbage 04-24-2012 08:18 PM

I think the real reason that people think this is not a deep QB class is that the talent at QB really drops off dramatically after the top 3 guys. If you compare last year's tier 3 QBs (Ponder, Dalton, Kaepernick, etc.) to this year's tier 3 QBs (Cousins, Weeden, Osweiler, etc.) the difference is quite astonishing.

brat316 04-24-2012 08:41 PM

Qbs are getting selected higher and higher each year. Years past would Dalton, and Ponder even be drafted in the first?

Having a Qb that can start and be consistent is more important than a LT, DE, WR.

mightytitan9 04-24-2012 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhaarat316 (Post 2964527)
Qbs are getting selected higher and higher each year. Years past would Dalton, and Ponder even be drafted in the first?

Having a Qb that can start and be consistent is more important than a LT, DE, WR.

Dalton was a 2nd rounder, whom I thought was way better than Ponder. I really feel if he had went to a better known school he would have been a first rounder.

With that said, it all comes back to the CBA. Now teams can allow a QB to sit (although, most of them did not).

SRK85 04-25-2012 12:06 AM

I don't think this QB class is deep. However, so many teams without a real number 1 QB target them now a days. Therefore, QBs are being drafted higher than they should. Honestly, the only 1st round QBs that should be drafted are RG3 and Luck. But some needy team will always take a chance on a QB.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.