Is it worse for the team to live with a current QB who is average to below average (Henne in this case) and draft an impact player at another spot, or to draft a Quarterback to replace the starter and let those impact players go to another team?

 

I've been thinking about this scenario for a while ever since Dave Caldwell stated "...I'd rather get backlash from that [passing on a Quarterback] than backlash from picking the wrong guy...
'" If you draft a Quarterback, that means that another talented player is going to another team; that ain't rocket science but it speaks to how drafting a lesser talented player does double damage to your roster regardless of which position you are drafting. That double damage is in the form of the guy you drafted can't play as well as the guy who is now on another team.

 

So which is worse? Is it more damaging to draft a guy who almost guarantees impact - for this example, let's say Clowney or Watkins are these impact guys - and have Chad Henne lead the team into September this coming season? Or would it hurt the team more to draft Bridgewater and let these playmakers go somewhere else?

 

The more that I think about it, the more convinced I am that drafting a Quarterback to be "the" guy in the sense that he must make up for so many faults riddled throughout the rest of the roster is the worst choice. If I take that perspective, then I start to evaluate a Quarterback along the same lines as I do any other player; I look at how much talent they add to my roster and I realize that I may be able to add more talent to a slightly less critical position than Quarterback.

 

In a perfect sense this would mean that instead of "building the roster up around the Quarterback to be taken later", it means that I am building my roster strength with every move that I make, even if I don't draft a Quarterback and even when I do. I do build to it when I draft one because I have evaluated him with respect to his talent contribution as compared to who else is available.

 

But the question at the heart of this issue remains; what's the more troublesome scenario? Drafting a bad one, or living with a barely decent one?

---

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!

You're post and title seem like different scenarios to me. 

 

Obviously if Caldwell doesn't think any of the QBs are good then yeah stick with Henne another year until you can find "the guy". But most likely this team won't be picking top 5 next year so will you have a shot at getting a better prospect than any of the big 3 right now? You don't know but its not likely top prospects fall out of the top 5.

 

When first reading you're title I thought you meant would it be better to draft a bust or an above average guy like Dalton or Alex Smith. In that case it would be better to draft a bust because a teams goal is not to go one and done in the playoffs every year. Dalton and Smith have been surrounded by arguably the best overall rosters in the league, and they still haven't reached a SB. It would be better to draft someone who sucks so the team can reset and try to find someone who is better than just above average. 

---

Definitely drafting an OK QB would be the wrong move. Guys like Ponder, Schaub, Dalton, Kolb, Sanchez, etc. will never win you a SuperBowl. 

 

We need a guy who will consistently, week in and week out, make plays to help us win. We cannot do average again at QB! 

---

Shock the world

You're post and title seem like different scenarios to me. 

 

Obviously if Caldwell doesn't think any of the QBs are good then yeah stick with Henne another year until you can find "the guy". But most likely this team won't be picking top 5 next year so will you have a shot at getting a better prospect than any of the big 3 right now? You don't know but its not likely top prospects fall out of the top 5.

 

When first reading you're title I thought you meant would it be better to draft a bust or an above average guy like Dalton or Alex Smith. In that case it would be better to draft a bust because a teams goal is not to go one and done in the playoffs every year. Dalton and Smith have been surrounded by arguably the best overall rosters in the league, and they still haven't reached a SB. It would be better to draft someone who sucks so the team can reset and try to find someone who is better than just above average. 

 

I understand the impression that the title makes, I'm just not skilled enough to lay out the scenario in one or two sentences. Apologies for that but I do appreciate you reading through the original post.

 

My counter to your "draft a bust so we can replace him" approach is that nothing is really holding Cincinnati and Kansas City back from drafting a Quarterback. They can draft one this season and even trade up to do so if they so desire. Know what's cool about that? They still have a strong roster and they just added a Quarterback to it.

---

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!

To answer your question right now, I think we shoud apply a real case scenario:

 

Would you rather have Henne right now or Geno Smith / EJ Manuel  --- I'd rather have Henne and see what comes this year or next.

 

Now if you were to ask about passing on a Andrew Luck, then I would think that's almost as bad as drafting an average QB.

---

Definitely drafting an OK QB would be the wrong move. Guys like Ponder, Schaub, Dalton, Kolb, Sanchez, etc. will never win you a SuperBowl. 

 

We need a guy who will consistently, week in and week out, make plays to help us win. We cannot do average again at QB! 

 

You misunderstood my question, but that's my fault. What I was asking is: does it do more damage to the team to live with Henne for another season while they draft a Clowney or a Watkins playmaker, or to draft a Bridgewater and have him bust in three years Quarterback who is viewed in their eyes as having less talent than the players at other positions? This of course is assuming that Bridgewater will bust which may not occur.

---

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'm kind of confused here.

 

The question seems to go all over the place.  Why assume that Bridgewater is going to bust?  And I don't mean "He's not going to bust!"  I mean what purpose does the assumption make.  I mean in a hypothetical scenario, you should have some purpose for assumptions that you make..There doesn't appear to be a purpose to it here though.  It's presenting  one bad scenario, and one good scenario.

 

From the comment from Dave, I'd presume that the question is: Which is worse; Passing on the right guy, or picking the wrong one.  

 

At first glance, "Picking the wrong one." is the obvious choice.  But the real scenarios here are really:


Scenario A: You have evaluated a player, and believe he can be a franchise QB.  You take him, and he turns out to be the wrong guy.


Scenario B: You have evaluated a player, and believe he can be a franchise QB.  You pass on him, and he turns out to be the right guy for another team.

 

Which is a bit more complex, but is also making the assumption that your evaluations may be wrong.  It concerns me that Dave seems to have this mindset, because you should go with your evaluations.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Taking a bad QB hurts both that position and the one you didn't take instead. In this case say we take Manziel who busts AND we suffer the opportunity costs associated with not taking Watkins or Clowney who are both Pro Bowl type players by year two. That hurts at multiple levels where playing with Henne another year at least establishes a minimum for expected performance.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I'm kind of confused here.

 

The question seems to go all over the place.  Why assume that Bridgewater is going to bust?  And I don't mean "He's not going to bust!"  I mean what purpose does the assumption make.  I mean in a hypothetical scenario, you should have some purpose for assumptions that you make..There doesn't appear to be a purpose to it here though.  It's presenting  one bad scenario, and one good scenario.

 

From the comment from Dave, I'd presume that the question is: Which is worse; Passing on the right guy, or picking the wrong one.  

 

At first glance, "Picking the wrong one." is the obvious choice.  But the real scenarios here are really:


Scenario A: You have evaluated a player, and believe he can be a franchise QB.  You take him, and he turns out to be the wrong guy.

Scenario B: You have evaluated a player, and believe he can be a franchise QB.  You pass on him, and he turns out to be the right guy for another team.

 

Which is a bit more complex, but is also making the assumption that your evaluations may be wrong.  It concerns me that Dave seems to have this mindset, because you should go with your evaluations.  

 

The more I read my OP, the more convinced I am that someone else wrote it after being on a Benadryl bender, but I'll do the best that I can to try and fix it.

 

The underlying point that I am trying to drum up conversation over is this; between taking a Quarterback who is viewed as having less talent than other players in his class simply to improve your Quarterback situation

 

- or -

 

drafting the more talented player and having to live with a less than ideal Quarterback situation

 

Which of those is worse for the team?

 

 

I'm not trying to say that the Quarterback will bust - even though I wrote that for some really lame reason that I don't even know - but rather how does it affect you to take a Quarterback who is less talented than say a Defensive End? Yes, it improves your QB position, but a more talented guy has gone somewhere else.

---

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!

 

 

When first reading you're title I thought you meant would it be better to draft a bust or an above average guy like Dalton or Alex Smith. In that case it would be better to draft a bust because a teams goal is not to go one and done in the playoffs every year. Dalton and Smith have been surrounded by arguably the best overall rosters in the league, and they still haven't reached a SB. It would be better to draft someone who sucks so the team can reset and try to find someone who is better than just above average. 

 

I never understood this argument.  Are you really saying the Bengals would have been better off drafting Blaine Gabbert that year?  

Dalton is fine in Cincinatti, for the time being.  The Bengals should draft another QB, like the 49ers did in Kaepernick, if they feel like it will give them a chance to win a superbowl.

 

I'd rather be average for 5 years and in the meantime keep an eye out for a late bloomer or someone with home run potential in the late 1st or so.  You should always strive to get the better player, even if the player is only a marginal improvement.

---

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

Drafting the Wrong QB would be the worse situation to me.


Drafting a guy that ends up a Ponder turns out no better than sticking with a Henne, except it took you 3 years longer to know you had a Henne. All while skipping positional talent, like others have mentioned.

---

So basically the question is:


Which situation would you prefer:

 

For a numbers game:

Chad Henne Hypothetical 2014 season: 3456 yards 16 TD's 17 INTs

Hypothetical QB 2014 season: 3680 yards, 20 TD's, 14 INT's


Situation A:

Jags take the QB and upgrade their QB situation, but might not have The Answer.  The QB will be serviceable, but may not ever be able to make a deep playoff run

 

Situation B:

Jags pass on the QB, and instead get a more talented player at a different position


In which case, personally I'd prefer Situation A.  Though Situation B could lead to a better team overall in the long run.  Though that's not a certainty.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Teams are always better off having their guy flame out instead of always just doing enough to keep a job.

 

The texans are a classic example of making the mistake of thinking a game manager is good enough. I can understand their fear after drafting David Carr, but teams that accept mediocrity won't win Superbowls.

---

The worst case is "settling" for either one.

 

Keep drafting, keep developing.  Sooner or later you will hit.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

I never understood this argument.  Are you really saying the Bengals would have been better off drafting Blaine Gabbert that year?  

Dalton is fine in Cincinatti, for the time being.  The Bengals should draft another QB, like the 49ers did in Kaepernick, if they feel like it will give them a chance to win a superbowl.

 

I'd rather be average for 5 years and in the meantime keep an eye out for a late bloomer or someone with home run potential in the late 1st or so.  You should always strive to get the better player, even if the player is only a marginal improvement.

 

Short term, no. Long term yes. The Bengals are going to play out Daltons contract and maybe even extend him, continuing to dwell in mediocrity. At least we know our QB sucks and are making an attempt to find a franchise guy. 

 

Yes you could draft another QB but outside the first rounds you're odds of finding one are minuscule, but I suppose you could trade a bunch of picks to move up in the first to get a guy you really like. But teams with an above average QB have never really done that in the past. 

---

Short term, no. Long term yes. The Bengals are going to play out Daltons contract and maybe even extend him, continuing to dwell in mediocrity. At least we know our QB sucks and are making an attempt to find a franchise guy. 

 

That's only true if you force yourself to accept Dalton as your franchise QB.  There's no rule that you can't draft a QB in the 1st round if you have a QB.  I'd rather have the luxury of having a capable QB on the roster to waiting around for THE ONE and hope he either BOOMS IT or BUSTS.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

To answer your question right now, I think we shoud apply a real case scenario:


Would you rather have Henne right now or Geno Smith / EJ Manuel --- I'd rather have Henne and see what comes this year or next.


.

I'd rather have EJ Manuel than Chad Henne.

---

Short term, no. Long term yes. The Bengals are going to play out Daltons contract and maybe even extend him, continuing to dwell in mediocrity. At least we know our QB sucks and are making an attempt to find a franchise guy. 

 

idk, I just don't see it that way.  For instance, the Bengals could draft a guy like Derek Carr possibly with their 1st round pick this year and groom him while Dalton plays out his contract.

 

Ask yourself this:  Would you trade places with the Bengals?  I sure would.  We have yet to find a guy that's even as good as Dalton, much less anything else.

---

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

You misunderstood my question, but that's my fault. What I was asking is that does it do more damage to the team to live with Henne for another season while draft a Clowney or a Watkins, or to draft a Bridgewater and have him bust in three years? This of course is assuming that Bridgewater will bust which may not occur.

 

Yes, I'd rather draft someone that is not a bust rather then draft a bust.

---

Yes, I'd rather draft someone that is not a bust rather then draft a bust.

 

Basically this.  

---

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