I've been reading and hearing everywhere that certain QBs aren't worth picking up early but are worth acquiring later hoping they develop.

If Wilson or Kaepernick would have been picked in the 1st round, teams would have caught a lot of flak but they would have been correct in their assessment. I say if you like a QB and believe he can be a difference maker (Not an Alex Smith or Matt Schsub type), draft him and don't look back.

If you don't believe he can be that, don't waste your time and continue to strengthen your team's other areas.

---

Making up

Evidence

Depending on

Information

Available

If you think a QB has "franchise QB" potential but will fall outside of the first round - he's still worth picking and you get to grab some top talent ahead of him. 

 

Win/Win

---

Sure. Theres reasonable value for any pick. Sometimes you take a QB later and it works out. The worst thing you can do is overdraft a player (at any position). Thats part of what got Gene Smith in trouble. The best GM's are those that work the draft and get value at the most rounds possible. 

---

So what I understand is if the Seahawks selected Russell in the 1st, that would have been failure by their front office?

Sounds ridiculous to me seeing that he looks like he'll be darned good for the foreseeable future.

---

Making up

Evidence

Depending on

Information

Available

So what I understand is if the Seahawks selected Russell in the 1st, that would have been failure by their front office?

Sounds ridiculous to me seeing that he looks like he'll be darned good for the foreseeable future.

 

Some folks would advocate that, saying "if you like him, take him."

 

That's not the way it works.  You must get the right value, no matter what position the player plays.

---

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

The thing is that no one, not even the staff who drafted Wilson, could have predicted that Wilson is going to be a franchise QB this early in his career.  He was drafted in the third round, at minimum risk to the team, to be a developmental guy behind Matt Flynn.  It just so happened that Wilson turned out to be better than what they thought he could be.

 

If the Sawhawks could see the future on Wilson's development as a franchise QB, they might even traded up to the third overall pick to draft Wilson because they would fear that another team could potentially draft Wilson ahead of them.  Of course, hindsight is 20/20.

---

Some folks would advocate that, saying "if you like him, take him."

 

That's not the way it works.  You must get the right value, no matter what position the player plays.

 

Stop the presses! Me & pirkster agree for once. 

---

So if we would've picked Kaepernick instead of Gabbert, it works have been a bad move because we didn't maximize the pick?

Once a player is selected, where they were picked shouldn't matter IF they are successful and productive.

---

Making up

Evidence

Depending on

Information

Available

So if we would've picked Kaepernick instead of Gabbert, it works have been a bad move because we didn't maximize the pick?

Once a player is selected, where they were picked shouldn't matter IF they are successful and productive.

 

Kaepernick at our original pick of 16 (with no trade up to 10) would have been reasonable value. 

---

Kaepernick at our original pick of 16 (with no trade up to 10) would have been reasonable value. 

 

Thanks for reminding me that we traded up for Gabbert. Bleh...

---

You draft to maximize value. If you can get your player in the 3rd why would you use a first?


Sure the Seahawks could have drafted Wilson in the first but by doing so you lose value and you also miss out on other players. In this scenario the Hawks would get their franchise QB but would miss out on another impact player, Bruce Irvin.

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."

You draft to maximize value. If you can get your player in the 3rd why would you use a first?


Sure the Seahawks could have drafted Wilson in the first but by doing so you lose value and you also miss out on other players. In this scenario the Hawks would get their franchise QB but would miss out on another impact player, Bruce Irvin.

 

Exactly. Not sure why this concept is not only hard for a lot of posters here to comprehend, but apparently also Gene Smith, too. 

---

Sure. Theres reasonable value for any pick. Sometimes you take a QB later and it works out. The worst thing you can do is overdraft a player (at any position). Thats part of what got Gene Smith in trouble. The best GM's are those that work the draft and get value at the most rounds possible. 

 

Agreed completely.

 

Roger Staubach, Joe Montana, Boomer Esiason, Brett Favre, Drew Brees, Tom Brady, Russell Wilson,Brunell, Hasselbeck, Neil O' Donnell....shoot...even a guy like Frank Reich were worth being taken where they were, even if not in the first round.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I've been reading and hearing everywhere that certain QBs aren't worth picking up early but are worth acquiring later hoping they develop.

If Wilson or Kaepernick would have been picked in the 1st round, teams would have caught a lot of flak but they would have been correct in their assessment. I say if you like a QB and believe he can be a difference maker (Not an Alex Smith or Matt Schsub type), draft him and don't look back.

If you don't believe he can be that, don't waste your time and continue to strengthen your team's other areas.

 

You may like a player with a higher grade as well, which allows for you to take this alternative player, then wait and take "your guy" later on.

 

I see what you're saying about QB's, but if you think a guy like Aaron Murray can be developed into a good player, you still don't take him with a first round pick.  It's insane.  He can be had later on, and if he cannot, then somebody overdrafted him.

---

How do you know a player will be there at the next spot you draft at.


There were reports that PHI based their whole draft around selecting wilson in the 3rd. How did that work out? You draft players according go your board, not what you think other teams boards are.


Gene didnt "reach" he was just a bad evaluator of talent, and thought certain prospects were better than they actually were.

---

So if we would've picked Kaepernick instead of Gabbert, it works have been a bad move because we didn't maximize the pick?

Once a player is selected, where they were picked shouldn't matter IF they are successful and productive.

Hindsight is 20/20.  It's easy to know after the fact.

---

How do you know a player will be there at the next spot you draft at.


 

 

You don't.  That's why the draft is so unpredictable.  But every team has a big board, grading their targeted players for a reason.  Consistently overdrafting will leave you in a world of hurt.

---

You don't. That's why the draft is so unpredictable. But every team has a big board, grading their targeted players for a reason. Consistently overdrafting will leave you in a world of hurt.

Overdrafting on your board, or someone elses? theres no consensus board everyone gors off. Its all relative to the specific team, which many people here seem to not understand.


no one here knows if tyson or blaine were genes #10 prospect on his board or not

---

Overdrafting on your board, or someone elses? theres no consensus board everyone gors off. Its all relative to the specific team, which many people here seem to not understand.


no one here knows if tyson or blaine were genes #10 prospect on his board or not

 

Obviously your own board.  You draft to improve your team.  If you have a guy like Aaron Murray, for example, the number one guy on your board, then you draft him in round one.  That's not likely though.

---

How do you know a player will be there at the next spot you draft at.


There were reports that PHI based their whole draft around selecting wilson in the 3rd. How did that work out? You draft players according go your board, not what you think other teams boards are.


Gene didnt "reach" he was just a bad evaluator of talent, and thought certain prospects were better than they actually were.

 

You don't fall in love with players. Thats how it works. GM's should have a general idea of a players perceived draft grade and the good GM's if they like a player will try to get him at as close to that value as they can without overpaying. GM's that don't fall in love with players have solid contingency plans, and usually get good players anyway. In 1984, The Eagles wanted WR Perry Tuttle, he was snatched up right before their pick. So they instead took WR Mike QUick with the very next pick (who they also scouted heavily and liked) . How'd that work out for them? 

 

The Gene Smith way of drafting was stupid and did not maximize value. You are going to miss on draft picks regardless....but when you miss AND reach, its compounding the problem. 

 

BTW, Gene definitely did reach on several picks, Alualu especially. 

---