Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: QB at 13?
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
Zero
This is kind of an extension of a conversation in another thread. It's a long winded but interesting analysis of whether and when a team should use a first round pick on a QB and what the historical success of taking a QB in the first is.

In short, it revolves around the individual and the state of the team. A suck ass team probably shouldn't pick a QB who needs support to succeed, aka Tim Couch. From the hiring of Pederson, Reich and DeFilippo and the questions surrounding Bradford to the hiring of Schwartz and the new player contracts, it sure looks like the team is getting ready to reboot the Reid era with a new QB.
QUOTE
You should take a quarterback in the first round because of the Super Bowl potential, but not if the rest of your organization is a mess. If the team is completely devoid of talent and the front office was recently blown up (or if anyone is on the hot seat) and you're left with a top ten pick, it's probably best to pass over a quarterback in favor of "safer" talent. On the other hand, if you've attained some stability with your team and there are nice pieces in place on the roster then you absolutely pull the trigger. In a nutshell, unless you're drafting Peyton Manning you should select a quarterback to complete your roster rather than as a foundation to build around.

This article revolves around a QB in round 1, but if the Eagles resign Bradford for two or three years they could just as easily look at someone like Hackenberg later on to develop.
nephillymike
Thanks for the article.

Interesting stuff.

I look at it a little differently than the author. A bunch of numbers that will confuse everyone.

I think it can be agreed upon that to win the SB, these days in the NFL, you need to have a good NFL QB.

What defines a good NFL QB?

I think passer rating is the best indicator long term of what good QB play is. It isn't fool proof, but pretty damn good. We can look at passing yards/game also,which is a pretty good indicator.

There are 8 active QB's who have won the SB: Wilson. Brady, Brees, Roeth, E. Manning, Rodgers, Flacco, P. Manning.

Six of them are top 14 in career passer rating among active QB's (all except Flacco 18th and Eli 20th)
Six of them are top 14 in career passing yds/game among active QB's (all except Flacco 17th and Wilson 19th)
Seven of them are top 14 in one of passer rating or passing yards/game (only Flacco)

So, follow this, it seems like top 14 in either of these categories is a pretty good start to getting a QB capable of winning a SB championship. For a great majority, most in the top 14 are SB caliber. To be fair, there are a few in the top 14 that are debatable:

Questionable Top 14 in Active Career Passer Rating - #11 Dalton, #13 Palmer, #14 Cutler
Questionable Top 14 in Active Career Pass Yds/Game - #2 Stafford, #10 Palmer, #11 Tannehill, #13 Bradford,#14 Cutler

I guess its a matter of some opinion whether some of the questionables can do it. some should be able to.

So, for those in the top 14 in passer rating, 7 were drafted before the 13th pick, 7 after.
For those in the top 14 yds/game, 11 were drafted before the 13th pick, 3 after.
There are 19 that are either top 14 in rating or yards/game. 12 were picked before the 13th pick, 7 after.

For those not in the top 13 picks, there was a late 1st (Rodgers), 2 2nds (Dalton, Brees), 2 3rds (Wilson, Schaub), a 6th (Brady) and an UDFA (Romo). Looked at another way, 17 of the 19 were picked in the top 3 rounds.

Of the 8 different SB winning QB, only 3, Peyton, Eli and Roethlisberger were drafted before the 13th pick, the other 5 were selected 13 or after.

My conclusion from this cloud is:

#1 You can get a SB winning QB drafting at #13 or lower as 5 of the 8 active SB winning QB's were drafted there.

#2 You need to draft a QB in the top 3 rounds for him to have a realistic shot at being good enough to win a SB as 17 or the 19 top 14 in rating or yards were picked in the 3rd round or higher.

Furthermore, QB is such an important position that teams need to devote multiple high round picks in drafting them until that time that they have found their long term guy. If the Eagles pass on Bradford, I would say they need to use two of their 1st-2nd or 3rd round draft picks in the next two years on QB's. Back fill the other rounds by trading players of picks, but they need to invest in the position. People thought WAS was crazy with RG3 and Cousins. Not so much now.
Eyrie
I'm leaning against a QB at #13 until we have a solid starting cast to support him (ie fix the OL and WRs).

That means either paying Bradford the big money to stay, or of finding a fill in for two years and drafting a QB in 2017.
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Feb 13 2016, 09:37 PM) *
My conclusion from this cloud is:

#1 You can get a SB winning QB drafting at #13 or lower as 5 of the 8 active SB winning QB's were drafted there.

#2 You need to draft a QB in the top 3 rounds for him to have a realistic shot at being good enough to win a SB as 17 or the 19 top 14 in rating or yards were picked in the 3rd round or higher.

Furthermore, QB is such an important position that teams need to devote multiple high round picks in drafting them until that time that they have found their long term guy. If the Eagles pass on Bradford, I would say they need to use two of their 1st-2nd or 3rd round draft picks in the next two years on QB's. Back fill the other rounds by trading players of picks, but they need to invest in the position. People thought WAS was crazy with RG3 and Cousins. Not so much now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when Jimmy Johnson came into the NFL from Miami he drafted Troy Aikman #1 then turned around and drafted Steve Walsh with a first round pick in the supplemental draft ... I also seem to recall that the Walsh #1 would have been the first pick in the next year's draft. Ouch! Johnson obviously recognized the importance of having a good QB but also saw the value of having a good QB. The concept of growing QBs was shared by GB and their departed QB coach, King Andrew I of Philadelphia.

That aside, I'm of the belief that a good/great QB is more than an individual talent but how that talent dovetails with the organization and the rest of the team. I'd love to see them keep Bradford for a short term deal. He's supposedly a smart guy who may be a good influence on a young guy who needs a couple of years to acclimate to the position ... again, Hackenberg type?
Phits
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Feb 14 2016, 07:21 AM) *
I'm leaning against a QB at #13 until we have a solid starting cast to support him (ie fix the OL and WRs).

I think drafting a QB is the #1 priority. Building a supporting cast comes after you have the star. A rookie QB needs to experience growing pains so they can ultimately "lead us out of the wilderness".
Reality Fan
Drafting a QB is the number 1 priority only when there is obvious talent to draft which this draft lacks...the 3 guys at the top are not top quality but rather the best of a bad bunch....it may not be 2103 but it is close....
snow
QUOTE (Zero @ Feb 13 2016, 07:27 AM) *
This is kind of an extension of a conversation in another thread. It's a long winded but interesting analysis of whether and when a team should use a first round pick on a QB and what the historical success of taking a QB in the first is.

In short, it revolves around the individual and the state of the team. A suck ass team probably shouldn't pick a QB who needs support to succeed, aka Tim Couch. From the hiring of Pederson, Reich and DeFilippo and the questions surrounding Bradford to the hiring of Schwartz and the new player contracts, it sure looks like the team is getting ready to reboot the Reid era with a new QB.

This article revolves around a QB in round 1, but if the Eagles resign Bradford for two or three years they could just as easily look at someone like Hackenberg later on to develop.

snow
The Eagles should not take a Qb at 13. They need an or and a oh first. They can pick up food an in round 4. Kevin Hogan.
Phits
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Feb 14 2016, 01:01 PM) *
Drafting a QB is the number 1 priority only when there is obvious talent to draft which this draft lacks...the 3 guys at the top are not top quality but rather the best of a bad bunch....it may not be 2103 but it is close....

"Obvious " talent doesn't always pan out. It's much better to keep trying until you find the fit, than to "wait" for the right one only to find that it doesn't work.

As for the quality of the top 3, we don't expect them to come in and produce immediately. They are meant to be groomed into becoming the future.
Eyrie
QUOTE (Phits @ Feb 14 2016, 05:24 PM) *
I think drafting a QB is the #1 priority. Building a supporting cast comes after you have the star. A rookie QB needs to experience growing pains so they can ultimately "lead us out of the wilderness".

A rookie needs a decent supporting cast if he is to improve with growing pains, and without such support he will develop bad habits and remain in the wilderness.

Fix the OL first to give the rookie time to see the field and WR next so that he has guys who can catch the ball. Then your rookie will be a better player for his career.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Phits @ Feb 14 2016, 01:20 PM) *
"Obvious " talent doesn't always pan out. It's much better to keep trying until you find the fit, than to "wait" for the right one only to find that it doesn't work.

As for the quality of the top 3, we don't expect them to come in and produce immediately. They are meant to be groomed into becoming the future.


That's great....but when the draft is full of Brian Hoyers and Mike Glennons you don't waste a high draft pick on them....you go for the BPA and build your team and go for a QB when there is someone decent...
Phits
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Feb 14 2016, 02:01 PM) *
A rookie needs a decent supporting cast if he is to improve with growing pains, and without such support he will develop bad habits and remain in the wilderness.

Fix the OL first to give the rookie time to see the field and WR next so that he has guys who can catch the ball. Then your rookie will be a better player for his career.

An OL has to gel with the QB as much as they need time together to develop into an effective unit. The same goes for receivers.

QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Feb 14 2016, 02:06 PM) *
That's great....but when the draft is full of Brian Hoyers and Mike Glennons you don't waste a high draft pick on them....you go for the BPA and build your team and go for a QB when there is someone decent...

The draft is a crap shoot. You pay your scouts to find the talent. That's not to say you have to use a #1 pick on a QB, but in the absence of a franchise QB it should be your number one priority. If you find a QB that fits your mold you pull the trigger.
Eyrie
QUOTE (Phits @ Feb 15 2016, 04:04 AM) *
An OL has to gel with the QB as much as they need time together to develop into an effective unit. The same goes for receivers.

The whole offense has to gel, but the question is where do you start?

The answer is the OL, because without that you'll get your future elite QB killed. He's not going to develop good habits, improve his throwing mechanism or learn how to read a defence when he's running for his life.

I'll accept that WR is open to debate.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Feb 14 2016, 02:06 PM) *
That's great....but when the draft is full of Brian Hoyers and Mike Glennons you don't waste a high draft pick on them....you go for the BPA and build your team and go for a QB when there is someone decent...



I heard it said somewhere that you build your team through the draft but you fill huge voids with Free agents.

I kind of agree with this as doing it that way takes the pressure off needing to reach for a position in the draft.

Do you agree? (asking not only you but everyone)

If you agree, than do you see Sanchez as starting QB as a huge void?

If you do not agree, then are you willing to step back two years while a rookie QB, possibly not drafted in the 1st round if he's not BPA, matures and hopefully pans out. And if so, fast forward two years and how many of our current stars will be stars?

That to me is the tough question.
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Feb 15 2016, 06:57 PM) *
I heard it said somewhere that you build your team through the draft but you fill huge voids with Free agents.

I kind of agree with this as doing it that way takes the pressure off needing to reach for a position in the draft.

Do you agree? (asking not only you but everyone)

If you agree, than do you see Sanchez as starting QB as a huge void?

If you do not agree, then are you willing to step back two years while a rookie QB, possibly not drafted in the 1st round if he's not BPA, matures and hopefully pans out. And if so, fast forward two years and how many of our current stars will be stars?

That to me is the tough question.

I agree. In this instance if they keep Bradford they need to sign a FA guard and WR because they're saying they can compete now. If Bradford is gone they need to groom a young QB, keep their young players and maximize the compensatory picks. If Sanchez is the starter there's not a lot of sense in spending for FA. If they sign Bradford they think he can win and they need to help him.

Best scenario is to sign Bradford to a show me deal and let him show everyone. Draft a developmental guy who can fill in, replace him or be traded in a couple of years.
Dreagon
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Feb 14 2016, 01:06 PM) *
That's great....but when the draft is full of Brian Hoyers and Mike Glennons you don't waste a high draft pick on them....you go for the BPA and build your team and go for a QB when there is someone decent...


I think this hits at the crux of the matter. Just how good are the top three in this draft, and can the future of any of these three be improved by sitting them behind a veteran for a year or two.

I think Goff is rated the highest and most NFL ready, but I also think there are concerns that he may not have as much potential upside as Lynch or Wentz if they are allowed to develop. Wentz played in the "little leagues" so there is some mystery how well his impressive body of work really translates into being NFL ready. Lynch may be the most interesting physical specimen of the three, but again many consider it in his advantage to sit a year or two. These guys are a big case of "it's not just who they are but what is done with them."

But there is one other thing to keep in mind. While none of these guys are Andrew Luck, only the the teams picking in the top three ever get a shot at the Andrew Luck's anyway so you can't really count him. I think any of these three, if handled right, can provide a team with a good to high quality starting NFL quarterback.
Zero
QUOTE (Dreagon @ Feb 15 2016, 07:41 PM) *
These guys are a big case of "it's not just who they are but what is done with them."

Well said.
D Rock
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Feb 14 2016, 07:06 PM) *
That's great....but when the draft is full of Brian Hoyers and Mike Glennons you don't waste a high draft pick on them....you go for the BPA and build your team and go for a QB when there is someone decent...

Yes
Phits
QUOTE (Dreagon @ Feb 15 2016, 07:41 PM) *
While none of these guys are Andrew Luck, only the the teams picking in the top three ever get a shot at the Andrew Luck's anyway so you can't really count him. I think any of these three, if handled right, can provide a team with a good to high quality starting NFL quarterback.

I am reading the same thing from draft pundits.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.