Should a QB-Needy Team Pass Early?

KCStud · 12-03-2012, 09:24 PM

The Chiefs, Jaguars, Cardinals, Bills (well according to the owner) and possibly the Eagles need a QB.

Should these teams take the risk of drafting a Tyler Wilson, Geno Smith or Matt Barkley?

Or should these teams take BPA if it's higher on their board and try to trade back into the first for a QB?

Thoughts?

Pat Sims 90 · 12-03-2012, 09:33 PM

Take a QB early. The success rate after the 1st Round is not very good.

TACKLE · 12-03-2012, 09:35 PM

I'm very much a proponent of BPA over Need but like the rule says, if you need a QB and there is one you believe will be very good, you take him.
However, you can't just take a QB to take a QB.

So if you're not sold on the individual player's ability to lead your team, you don't him. That's why I think so many QB needy teams passed on Clausen that year.

SolidGold · 12-03-2012, 09:37 PM

Trade down in the first - get some picks and your QB. I am sure some team set at QB would trade up to get a guy they covet like Jones, Loutelia (sp?), Joeckel or Werner.

Than again just let the dust settle in March before seeing what the QB picture looks like.

TACKLE · 12-03-2012, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat Sims 90

Take a QB early. The success rate after the 1st Round is not very good.

This.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolidGold

Trade down in the first - get some picks and your QB. I am sure some team set at QB would trade up to get a guy they covet like Jones, Loutelia (sp?), Joeckel or Werner.

Not this.

SolidGold · 12-03-2012, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TACKLE

This.

Not this.

It's a deep QB class. Trade down in the 1st and get some picks - the guy the team is targeting may be there later in the first round.

derza222 · 12-03-2012, 10:28 PM

I think TACKLE summed it up well. If you don't have a franchise QB and there's a guy on the board you think will be a good NFL quarterback, you take him. Otherwise, go with a different position (although there are situations where you can take a QB if you already have a good one, obviously it worked out well for the Packers). Passing on a guy you think is a franchise guy is a mistake if you need one and taking a guy you're not confident in just because you need a franchise guy is a mistake as well.

farfromforgotten · 12-03-2012, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCStud

The Chiefs, Jaguars, Cardinals, Bills (well according to the owner) and possibly the Eagles need a QB.

Should these teams take the risk of drafting a Tyler Wilson, Geno Smith or Matt Barkley?

Or should these teams take BPA if it's higher on their board and try to trade back into the first for a QB?

Thoughts?

You guys have done a seemingly great job of drafting the assumed bpa over the years but where has that gotten you? The last QB the Chiefs drafted in the 1st round was Todd Blackledge... in 1983.

TACKLE · 12-03-2012, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolidGold

It's a deep QB class. Trade down in the 1st and get some picks - the guy the team is targeting may be there later in the first round.

That only works they have 'their guy' rated much higher than everybody else does (say they fall in love with a guy like Dysert). Otherwise, it's not worth risking not getting 'their guy' if 'their guy' is a consensus first rounder.

Also, for the Chiefs specifically, the other elite prospects at money positions do not match up with their needs. They this year don't need a pass rusher, they don't need a LT and they don't need a run stuffing D-Lineman. It's not a situation like Cincy in 2011 when they desperately needed a CB and a WR as well QB obviously and AJ and/or Peterson were going to be there. And had they had the #1 pick that year, I really doubt they would have taken anyone other than Cam with the hope of getting Dalton in the second.

SeanTaylorRIP · 12-03-2012, 11:17 PM

My philosophy is if you don't believe in a guy don't draft them just cause you need a QB. Try building the team elsewhere. I can't even imagine what the Skins would look like if they had settled for Gabbert 2 years ago which people were saying they were dumb not to take him because we needed a QB, I'll take the craptastic year with Beck or Grossman for RGIII any day, not to say that waiting means u will find a better QB as we got lucky, but IMO drafting a QB in the upper half of the first round if a failure sets your franchise back years, so if you don't believe in a guy don't draft one just because you need a QB.

Halsey · 12-04-2012, 12:25 AM

The Chiefs have been passing up first round QBs to take "less risky" players for years. How's that working out. They've got a roster full of talented players at positions other than QB, yet are terrible.

FUNBUNCHER · 12-04-2012, 04:43 AM

The Chiefs and similar teams need to keep targeting QBs in the first round until they find a guy they can build their offense around.

If whoever they take in the first round of the 2013 draft doesn't pan out, they need to select another QB in 2017, and so on.

AntoinCD · 12-04-2012, 05:31 AM

This topic comes up every year, however it is still not a black and white issue.

There are a few variables that come into play.

1. Do I think I can win a Superbowl with this QB?

2. Is there a guy who is a great fit for the system who, with development can become a franchise QB that can be had in the 2nd round?

3. Is the difference between the best available player so wide from the best available QB that I can justify not picking the QB?

I will state that I am a big believer of if you don't have a franchise QB then you need to get one. Look at all of the Superbowl winners for the past 10 years, they have all had at the very least above average QB play, and in general elite QB play.

In saying that teams who simply take a QB because they need a QB can set themselves further back than by not takin one. By taking a QB high in the draft you are almost committed to giving him 2 or 3 years of experience to see what you have. In this time you may miss elite QB prospects. Take the Rams as an example. They took Sam Bradford a few years back but still don't know if he is thei franchise. In the meantime they have passed on guys like RG3.

At the end of the day it's all a gamble. If you believe strongly enough that the guy is a franchise signal caller then you have to take him. That's why I can't fault St Louis for taking Bradford. However if you take a guy to fill a need, even if he is not a guy who love then it is most likely a mistake

Rosebud · 12-04-2012, 07:36 AM

Only if you don't think the guy's going to be a franchise QB, like when Buffalo passed on Clausen, they didn't believe in him, and so taking him would've been stupid. But if you think that a guy available at your pick will be able to one day lead you to the superbowl, you have to pick him.

Smash28Dash34 · 12-04-2012, 07:43 AM

If you interview a guy during the combine that you like and you come out with more positives than negatives you should take him. Franchise QB trumps all and your not going anywhere without one.

Halsey · 12-04-2012, 08:24 AM

Why do people always qualify selecting a QB by saying "You draft a guy if you like him". As opposed to other position, where you draft players you don't like?

Also, when are people going to get over the myth that QBs are so much more risky than other players. QB or not, if you select a bust with a top 10 pick, it's a bad thing.

Abaddon · 12-04-2012, 08:25 AM

Are there any "franchise" type QBs in this class, though? I don't believe so. Saddling yourself with a Mark Sanchez, Jake Locker, or Blaine Gabbert will set your team back for years. Christian Ponder is looking like a mistake as well. There's at least as much risk involved with drafting one of these QBs as with passing on them for a better player at a less valued position.

If you're going to gamble on a 1st round QB, and you're drafting near the top, the idea of trading back, grabbing a couple picks, and then rolling the dice seems the most logical. Not in every draft, but certainly in this one. Take advantage of a team desperate for a QB. If you can get even half of what the Skins paid for RGIII, you did good.

Halsey · 12-04-2012, 08:41 AM

Everybody wants to trade back. I'd rather trade back and get a good pass rusher and extra picks than take a good pass rusher in the top 5. Who wouldn't want to trade back and draft a good QB? The problem is that it doesn't work to wait around for the perfect QB to be available in a trade down scenario.

AntoinCD · 12-04-2012, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halsey

Why do people always qualify selecting a QB by saying "You draft a guy if you like him". As opposed to other position, where you draft players you don't like?

Also, when are people going to get over the myth that QBs are so much more risky than other players. QB or not, if you select a bust with a top 10 pick, it's a bad thing.

It's all relevant to how you value that player. If you have the QB rated as your 7th player on the board but you think he can be a franchise QB then value kinda dictates you pick him in most circumstances. It's not the same for other positions. Most teams won't pick a safety if he is their 7th rated player simply because they need a safety and they like him.

Also, all positions have busts, not just QBs, however the risks are much higher when selecting a QB high. If you draft a bust DT in the top ten it doesn't set your franchise back as far as selecting a bust QB in the top 10

vidae · 12-04-2012, 08:57 AM

For all the people who keep saying "just trade back!" or "just trade back into the first!".. it isn't that easy. People keep saying it like it is though.

AntoinCD · 12-04-2012, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vidae

For all the people who keep saying "just trade back!" or "just trade back into the first!".. it isn't that easy. People keep saying it like it is though.

Yup. People were saying that about Ponder and Locker in 2011 but both guys went in the top 12 picks. If you really want to take a guy and think, I'll move back 10 spots, pick up a few extra picks and still get him then you are risking getting burned. Better option is to just pick the guy where you are.

Halsey · 12-04-2012, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntoinCD

It's all relevant to how you value that player. If you have the QB rated as your 7th player on the board but you think he can be a franchise QB then value kinda dictates you pick him in most circumstances. It's not the same for other positions. Most teams won't pick a safety if he is their 7th rated player simply because they need a safety and they like him.

Also, all positions have busts, not just QBs, however the risks are much higher when selecting a QB high. If you draft a bust DT in the top ten it doesn't set your franchise back as far as selecting a bust QB in the top 10

Not having a QB sets franchises back. It's also a risk to keep passing talented QBs. There are elite QBs like Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees and Ben Roethlisberger who were passed numerous times for so called "safer players".

Iamcanadian · 12-04-2012, 09:02 AM

Teams are never going to draft a QB if the GM doesn't believe in him unless a crazy owner interfers and insists that his team will draft a QB no matter what.
I expect 3 or 4 QB will go in round 1 and the Chiefs along with other needy QB teams will swoop them up ASAP. Waiting is not an option in the NFL unlerss yoiu want your team to wait 2 or 3 years before securing one and accept staying in last place for years to come.

AntoinCD · 12-04-2012, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halsey

Not having a QB sets franchises back. It's also a risk to keep passing talented QBs. There are elite QBs like Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees and Ben Roethlisberger who were passed numerous times for so called "safer players".

Rodgers slid on draft day for unknown reasons and his career path is one unlikely to be seen again for a long time.

Brees is very much so an exception to the rule and Roethlisberger was drafted pretty high in the first in a draft with 2 other elite QB prospects.

mdmgrand · 12-04-2012, 10:03 AM

They have to at least try...

Drafting a bust isn't going to set the team back with a ridiculous amount of money put into these guys anymore. If you hit with a QB, your team could be raking in the revenue for 10+ years. I bet with the new rookie salary structure, teams will be willing to give up on a guy earlier (after two, maybe three, years with minimal progress) than they used to be.

So right now I say the Chiefs have to draft a QB, mainly to keep their fan base happy. Cardinals definitely should get a new guy in there and the Eagles will probably get a new staff that might want to pick up a new QB.

If I'm the Bills or the Jags, I'm waiting until next year. I never liked Gabbert as a prospect, but honestly, these guys aren't much better. And the Bills could go one more year with Fitzpatrick and get another receiving option to team with Spiller/Jackson. Their defense should improve by next year with a couple more pieces. Right now the Bills are projected at pick 11, in which they probably could go BPA and then pick up a receiver in round 2 such as Robert Woods or Tavon Austin (who would add a great dimension in their offense).