I never said anything contrarian to that statement, but...

 

Worlds better =/= franchise QB.

 

At this point, all the QB's have too many questions marks, to take them in the top 3 is too risky compared to players at other positions at that spot.

 

Right now we are so bad we don't need a "franchise quarterback" to upgrade the position. Get the best guy in May, then if he does not turn out to be a team savior get a better one next year. Problem solved.

---

It is better to pick one of these quarterbacks at #3 than miss out on our golden opportunity if we think that guy is much better than who we have now. He may not be what everybody wants - a "franchise quarterback" and "team savior" or the next Andrew Luck, but if he is much better than Chad Henne and Blaine Gabbert, we need him.

 

Not more than a guy like Clowney, who would be by far the best available player if he's there.

---

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

Right now we are so bad we don't need a "franchise quarterback" to upgrade the position. Get the best guy in May, then if he does not turn out to be a team savior get a better one next year. Problem solved.

 

You don't have to take a QB at #3 this year in order to draft another QB high next year.

---

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

Right now we are so bad we don't need a "franchise quarterback" to upgrade the position. Get the best guy in May, then if he does not turn out to be a team savior get a better one next year. Problem solved.

Hahaha oh if it were only that easy...

---

You don't have to take a QB at #3 this year in order to draft another QB high next year.

I am saying just having someone who is much better than the guys we have now is too important to sit back and wait for an elite player to be draft eligible.

---

Hahaha oh if it were only that easy...

 

I did not say it was easy.

---

Right now we are so bad we don't need a "franchise quarterback" to upgrade the position. Get the best guy in May, then if he does not turn out to be a team savior get a better one next year. Problem solved.

 

 

 

 

Wow. Is this your philosophy for every position? Keep drafting until one hits?

---

I perfectly understand everybody on this board thinks the draft has only three "franchise" quarterbacks with the potential to be elite. So far nobody has named a single quarterback who is valued at 39 overall and does not have a torn ACL.

....Jimmy Garoppolo.

 

And no everyone does not think that. You can't project that kind of success or failure on a QB, it's all a crapshoot with them. Which is why it's better to draft high end BAP at a position of need than reach on an inferior graded QB and just grab one in the later rounds unless you're absolutely sure he will be a good starter...and none of these quarterbacks are an absolute thing. That's not to say none of them will ever be pro bowlers, or they will all be busts; just none of them are without glaring flaws, and you don't use a top 3 pick on that when there are superior players available.

---

"A man with no sauce is lost.

<p style="text-align:center;">But that same man can get lost in the sauce."

I am saying just having someone who is much better than the guys we have now is too important to sit back and wait for an elite player to be draft eligible.

I don't understand how you could have been a member on this board since '08 and be this unknowledgeable when it comes to drafting.

---

"A man with no sauce is lost.

<p style="text-align:center;">But that same man can get lost in the sauce."

....Jimmy Garoppolo.

 

And no everyone does not think that. You can't project that kind of success or failure on a QB, it's all a crapshoot with them. Which is why it's better to draft high end BAP at a position of need than reach on an inferior graded QB and just grab one in the later rounds unless you're absolutely sure he will be a good starter...and none of these quarterbacks are an absolute thing. That's not to say none of them will ever be pro bowlers, or they will all be busts; just none of them are without glaring flaws, and you don't use a top 3 pick on that when there are superior players available.

 

By that logic you should never take a Quarterback in the Top 10.  Because there are no absolute things.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I don't understand how you could have been a member on this board since '08 and be this unknowledgeable when it comes to drafting.

 

I have been on this board longer than that with several other usernames.

 

I know this is not the ideal or desired way to draft, but I also know elite quarterbacks are rare and you can't go into any draft expecting your guy to be the next Andrew Luck.

---

By that logic you should never take a Quarterback in the Top 10.  Because there are no absolute things.  

There are absolute things, like Andrew Luck, and you SHOULD draft QBs that grade out higher than other available players like Matthew  Stafford and Sam Bradford. But if there are higher graded players at a position of need, as might be the case in this draft for us, you take the higher graded player. Bridgewater, Manziel, and Bortles all have significantly more risk involved than the three QBs I mentioned and all have a higher chance of busting...and this is when you have potentially players like Clowney, Watkins, Mack, Barr, or the option to trade back and accumulate picks available. There are smarter things you can do than immediately reach on a QB no matter what. That is not smart drafting.

---

"A man with no sauce is lost.

<p style="text-align:center;">But that same man can get lost in the sauce."

And this is keeping in mind you have a very interesting prospect in Garoppolo sitting in the second and a better crop of both senior and underclass QBs potentially coming out next year.

---

"A man with no sauce is lost.

<p style="text-align:center;">But that same man can get lost in the sauce."

A writer over in Tampa Bay did a really worthy job of looking historically of the success rate of QBs, by when they were chosen in the draft. The in-depth study found that QBs chosen higher had a significantly higher chance of being a successful QB. Another way to think of it, is the more teams pass on a QB, the greater the odds that QB will not be the franchise guy you are hoping to find.

QB Success Rate: (using a very strict measure for success)
Pick 1-15 53%
Pick 16-30 27%
Pick 31-45 20%
Pick 46-60 14%
Over pick 60 7%

Unfortunately, the best NFL talent evaluators in the world can not eliminate the failure rate, but have done a good job of increasing the odds of success if you use them. Gabbert and Leftwich turned out to be the 47% failure rate in the first half of round 1. Garrard was a 4th round success, beating the odds that was stacked against the pick. The Jaguar results in this QB lottery has left many "gun shy" in the selection of QBs high in the draft, and over confident in their belief that they can "get one just as good" later.

Also, I think many feel that the top 3 QBs in this draft are more valued in their minds as just beyond top 10 pick guys, where the success rate is closer to 1 in 3. Although they (Bridgewater, Manziel, and Bortles) are currently the perceived top QBs in this draft, they are also being perceived by many to not be the caliber of QBs that would typically be considered as picks in the top 5 of a draft.

The reality is probably that the only way to get one of these QBs, that would have a higher possibility of success than the later other QBs in the draft, would be to reach, as often is done to get QBs in drafts. I don't think anyone likes the idea of reaching for a pick that only has a 1 in 2 (or 1 in 3) chance of success. However, if you want to get a young QB into the rebuilding process, one is left with either using the draft lottery or exploring a trade. I leave it to Dave to determine that best way to get the job filled...it's why he's paid the big bucks.

---

And this is keeping in mind you have a very interesting prospect in Garoppolo sitting in the second and a better crop of both senior and underclass QBs potentially coming out next year.

 

In the Senior Bowl practice thread, some people said Jimmy Garoppolo was terrible. Because he was stupidly put on the South team, if that is true, Gus Bradley knows it.

---

A writer over in Tampa Bay did a really worthy job of looking historically of the success rate of QBs, by when they were chosen in the draft. The in-depth study found that QBs chosen higher had a significantly higher chance of being a successful QB. Another way to think of it, is the more teams pass on a QB, the greater the odds that QB will not be the franchise guy you are hoping to find.


QB Success Rate: (using a very strict measure for success)

Pick 1-15 53%

Pick 16-30 27%

Pick 31-45 20%

Pick 46-60 14%

Over pick 60 7%


Unfortunately, the best NFL talent evaluators in the world can not eliminate the failure rate, but have done a good job of increasing the odds of success if you use them. Gabbert and Leftwich turned out to be the 47% failure rate in the first half of round 1. Garrard was a 4th round success, beating the odds that was stacked against the pick. The Jaguar results in this QB lottery has left many "gun shy" in the selection of QBs high in the draft, and over confident in their belief that they can "get one just as good" later.


Also, I think many feel that the top 3 QBs in this draft are more valued in their minds as just beyond top 10 pick guys, where the success rate is closer to 1 in 3. Although they (Bridgewater, Manziel, and Bortles) are currently the perceived top QBs in this draft, they are also being perceived by many to not be the caliber of QBs that would typically be considered as picks in the top 5 of a draft.


The reality is probably that the only way to get one of these QBs, that would have a higher possibility of success than the later other QBs in the draft, would be to reach, as often is done to get QBs in drafts. I don't think anyone likes the idea of reaching for a pick that only has a 1 in 2 (or 1 in 3) chance of success. However, if you want to get a young QB into the rebuilding process, one is left with either using the draft lottery or exploring a trade. I leave it to Dave to determine that best way to get the job filled...it's why he's paid the big bucks.

 

The irony of it all is that Tampa hit with a QB in the third round last year.

 

But really, a study like that is a self fulfilling prophecy.  Assuming rational behavior and rational grades, the better players are going to be rated higher.  This distribution isn't likely to be much different for any position.

 

I will add, though, that studies also show that the bust rate his higher for QBs in the first round than it is for linemen (OL and DL, which includes DEs.)

---

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

Every time we pick a QB, its a bust.

---

They scurd

^real talk

---

^real talk

 

Eh, not so much.  That's merely the checkdown excuse by those who can't discuss the topic rationally without getting their panties in a bunch when the very real possibility of us passing on a QB with pick #3 comes to light.

---

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

In the Senior Bowl practice thread, some people said Jimmy Garoppolo was terrible. Because he was stupidly put on the South team, if that is true, Gus Bradley knows it.

No they didn't....

---

"A man with no sauce is lost.

<p style="text-align:center;">But that same man can get lost in the sauce."