I thought super bowl teams had a lot of first rd talent in general.

---

Brad Johnson

Yeah there are a handful of notable undrafted (or after 7th round draft pick) QBs in the last quarter decade...Warner, Johnson, Delhomme, Romo. If you want to add those to the study along with the other hundreds of undrafted QBs that went on to make rosters, however, the % chance of a QB after the 2nd becoming a notable starter drops from 9% to right at 5%, so it's better just to ignore them. 

---

I thought super bowl teams had a lot of first rd talent in general.

 

Now that would be an interesting - and probably more telling - study than simply the Quarterbacks. Off the top of my head, that Baltimore Defense had five First Round selections on their Defense alone. Ray Lewis, Ngata, Ed Reed, Terrell Suggs, and Jimmy Smith.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

Yeah there are a handful of notable undrafted (or after 7th round draft pick) QBs in the last quarter decade...Warner, Johnson, Delhomme, Romo. If you want to add those to the study along with the other hundreds of undrafted QBs that went on to make rosters, however, the % chance of a QB after the 2nd becoming a notable starter drops from 9% to right at 5%, so it's better just to ignore them. 

You know you can play this game with any position. There is no denying the correlation between round picked and chance of success. That is why they assign draft order in an attempt to help create parody.

 

I think the point people are trying to make regarding QB is that you don't have to take one in the first round every time you need a QB. The talent for a particular year may not be considered worthy of the selection, or more important, may not be as talented overall as a player you forgo to make that pick.

 

In economics they call this opportunity cost where the actual cost is not just what you put into something but also the difference in return of the alternate choice.

 

If you pass on a player who becomes a hall of fame player in the first to take a QB that turns out to be just decent because you are determined that you must take one in the first rd to be successful, the cost isn't just the pick you used, the cost becomes the hall of fame player.

 

 

I don't think anyone would mind if we took a QB because they thought he was the best player in the draft. Just don't do it just for the sake of being a QB. As shown, there are other routes to acquiring a successful QB. It's not a all or nothing scenario like Alfie is trying to present.

---

Now that would be an interesting - and probably more telling - study than simply the Quarterbacks. Off the top of my head, that Baltimore Defense had five First Round selections on their Defense alone. Ray Lewis, Ngata, Ed Reed, Terrell Suggs, and Jimmy Smith.

I know they didn't win the super bowl but wasn't like the entire o-line of the niners a first rd pick?

---

Plus Brady won the rings with a good defense and more balanced offense just like this past Seahawks team. Brees can thank Tracy porter for that one.

---

You know you can play this game with any position. There is no denying the correlation between round picked and chance of success. That is why they assign draft order in an attempt to help create parody.

 

I think the point people are trying to make regarding QB is that you don't have to take one in the first round every time you need a QB. The talent for a particular year may not be considered worthy of the selection, or more important, may not be as talented overall as a player you forgo to make that pick.

 

In economics they call this opportunity cost where the actual cost is not just what you put into something but also the difference in return of the alternate choice.

 

If you pass on a player who becomes a hall of fame player in the first to take a QB that turns out to be just decent because you are determined that you must take one in the first rd to be successful, the cost isn't just the pick you used, the cost becomes the hall of fame player.

 

 

I don't think anyone would mind if we took a QB because they thought he was the best player in the draft. Just don't do it just for the sake of being a QB. As shown, there are other routes to acquiring a successful QB. It's not a all or nothing scenario like Alfie is trying to present.

I know what opportunity cost is haha. No one is saying to force it (well maybe Wiseman is), and I have been very careful not to use any names. All I have ever done is show the raw stats, and say that if Dave deems there to be a franchise QB prospect available when we are on the clock at 3 then it doesn't matter who else is available, you take the QB. 

---

It will come down to evaluation, like it always does.

If The jags rank Teddy and Manziel, for example, as "franchise QB" kind of guys, they will be and should be the pick we make at #3 (if they're available).

If they don't think they are franchise QB material, I see ourselves drafting the BAP that fits a need.

 

For me, with my obviously very limited knowledge, only 3 QBs are worth of 1st round grades.

 

Bridgewater, Manziel, and Bortles.

 

I would not be OK with any other QB selected in the first round.... and probably not even at the top of the 2nd.  Mid-Late 2nd is where guys like Carr, Mettenberger, etc should get picked IMO.

 

I want one of the top 3 QBs I mentioned (trade down and get Bortles for example), or wait until the 3-4th and grab Garrapollo.  I think he'll do better than any other QB in this draft except for the top 3 I mentioned.

---

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#ff6600 size=4></FONT></B></FONT>

I know what opportunity cost is haha. No one is saying to force it (well maybe Wiseman is), and I have been very careful not to use any names. All I have ever done is show the raw stats, and say that if Dave deems there to be a franchise QB prospect available when we are on the clock at 3 then it doesn't matter who else is available, you take the QB. 

They are all potential franchise QBs in the draft, the difference is in your level of confidence. If you feel more confident in another player than you do in a potential franchise QB, you take the other player and then work on acquiring your QB a different way. It's a normal human bias to over value something of need. You don't leave the better player on the board to chase QBs. That is how you wind up with Gabbert.

 

There isn't one recipe for success. Having some sort of rigid plan based on stats is a recipe for disaster. You must have the ability to adapt to circumstance if you want to maintain the best position for yourself.

---

There isn't one recipe for success. Having some sort of rigid plan based on stats is a recipe for disaster. You must have the ability to adapt to circumstance if you want to maintain the best position for yourself.

You're right, there are other recipes...they are just recipes that 90% of the time (statistically) will lead to failure, and that is only if your goal is to find an average starting QB past past the 1st round.

 

If your goal is actually competing and winning a Super Bowl then your odds of failure are far higher than 90%. You can try to find the extreme outlier QBs late, I will take the 1st round talents and have a much better chance of winning. 

---

People don't have a good memory. Somehow Gabbert is now viewed as a reach, a forced pick and a QB that was only taken because he was a QB.

 

There is no question Gabbert was somewhat of a fabricated prospect but Gabbert vs Newton was a real debate at the time.

---

It will come down to evaluation, like it always does.

 

Yes, that's what I'm saying. If Dave feels it's Clowney vs no franchise QB prospects at 3 then by all means take the DE or whatever else. However, many people on here think that because the Seahawks did it that the pick should be the DE even if Dave deems a QB available at 3 to be franchise worthy. That is patently foolishness at its best. 

---

People don't have a good memory. Somehow Gabbert is now viewed as a reach, a forced pick and a QB that was only taken because he was a QB.

 

There is no question Gabbert was somewhat of a fabricated prospect but Gabbert vs Newton was a real debate at the time.

It's just QB fear, and it's understandable because Gabbert is still fresh in our minds. Most people don't understand that a DE at 3 is just as much of a gamble (statistically a slightly worse gamble even). The truth is, slightly less than 50% of the time you draft a QB top 10 you are going to get a Gabbert or Jamarcus Russell. Also, slightly more than 50% of the time that you take a DE top 10 you are going to end up with a Country Brown or Jamaal Anderson. 

---

Yes, that's what I'm saying. If Dave feels it's Clowney vs no franchise QB prospects at 3 then by all means take the DE or whatever else. However, many people on here think that because the Seahawks did it that the pick should be the DE even if Dave deems a QB available at 3 to be franchise worthy. That is patently foolishness at its best. 

 

Of course that's foolish.

 

I highly doubt anybody would take the best DE currently.. say Robert Quinn or Mario Williams or Robert Mathis, in their prime... ahead of a guy like Cam Newton, Andrew Luck, etc. 


DE is a big need, but when QB is also on your list of needs, that trumps all.  IF a QB is worth taking, you take him, no questions asked.

---

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#ff6600 size=4></FONT></B></FONT>

Of course that's foolish.

 

I highly doubt anybody would take the best DE currently.. say Robert Quinn or Mario Williams or Robert Mathis, in their prime... ahead of a guy like Cam Newton, Andrew Luck, etc. 

DE is a big need, but when QB is also on your list of needs, that trumps all.  IF a QB is worth taking, you take him, no questions asked.

Yes sir, we're on the same page. 

---

I know they didn't win the super bowl but wasn't like the entire o-line of the niners a first rd pick?

 

I do know that their Left side is and their Right Tackle. Joe Staley, Iupati, and Davis were all First Rounders. Plus you have Vernon Davis and Michael Crabtree to go along with Anquan Boldin.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

I do know that their Left side is and their Right Tackle. Joe Staley, Iupati, and Davis were all First Rounders. Plus you have Vernon Davis and Michael Crabtree to go along with Anquan Boldin.

 

But didn't the 49ers have a lot of players for a long time anyway? 

What made them better and got them "over the hump" was Harbaugh, consistency which resulted in improved QB play from Alex Smith.

---

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#ff6600 size=4></FONT></B></FONT>

I do know that their Left side is and their Right Tackle. Joe Staley, Iupati, and Davis were all First Rounders. Plus you have Vernon Davis and Michael Crabtree to go along with Anquan Boldin.

 

Boldin was not a first round pick.

---

Boldin was not a first round pick.

 

Ah, you're right! He was a Second Round selection for Arizona. For some reason I thought he was a First.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

Only good second rounders are Brees and Kaep. In the last 20 years.

 

How are you defining good?  As in upper-echelon elite?  There have been a number of 2nd rounders that have been good enough to take their team to the playoffs or keep them in the playoff hunt.  Andy Dalton, Jake Plummer, Kordell Stewart.  Chad Henne led the Dolphins to 9 wins.  Heck I think even Charlie Batch had an awful Lions team almost in the playoffs.  ANd Im sure there are a few others I missed.  No those guys arent elite but they were good enough to lead teams to victories.

 

If your goal is to find an upper echelon elite QB, I could probably make the case you dont want to draft one in the 1st round.  Take the top 15 QBs in QB rating this year (alright lets take the top 17 and exclude Josh McCown and Sam Bradford who didnt play half a season worth).  Of the top 15, I only count 5 who are playing for teams that drafted them in the 1st round.  Only 1/3.  The rest were either later round picks or are playing for a team that didnt draft them.

 

I think you can easily make an argument that the best course of action is to draft all other positions early in the draft in order to build up your team.  And either get lucky later in the draft/rookie free agency OR acquire a proven QB talent via trade or free agency.  As opposed to hoping whichever overdraftd QB you take in the first round pans out while simultaneously missing out on potentially elite players at other positions.

---

________________________________________________
Scouting well is all that matters.  Draft philosophy is all fluff.