Why Do Teams Waste Mid-Round Picks On QB's?

[kenney]

This obviously won't end the discussion, but in 2011, the Texans had three QBs on their depth chart to start the season: Matt Schaub, Matt Leinart, and TJ Yates.

Schaub: originally a mid-round backup who has the best record of any starting QB in their last 13 games played.
Leinart: former top 10 pick; veteran backup QB
Yates: weak-armed 5th rounder; secured the franchise's first playoff berth and win by beating Atlanta and Cincinnati (and Cincinnati again in the playoffs)

Mid-round backup QBs, with good coaching, can provide cheap, safe, emergency stop gaps with good coaching. Leinart doesn't do what Yates did. Former 1st-round, veteran back-ups come with egos, baggage, and whatever mental or technical flaws that landed them on your bench.

If I had to pinpoint it, just about every QB coach in the league loves the mid-round rookie QB because he believes he is something like a blank slate that he has time (unlike with 1st round QBs) to coach the flaws out of and form into a perfect disciple for his system. Whether or not this belief is misguided is another discussion entirely.
_________________
Welcome to Houston, DeAndre Hopkins!

[Its A Sabotage]

Because if you don't you end up with the likes of Byron Leftwhich, Luke McCown, David Carr, Joe Webb, Chad Henne, and the like backing up your Quarterback, and when he goes down your season is all but lost.
_________________

[Pugger]

[Meco]

Because you need depth. And because every so often you hit on a pick, see Joe Montana, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Matt Schaub and now it looks like Russell Wilson and Nick Foles could join the "good non round 1 QB" club. And even if you don't hit on a QB, you can pretend like you did and get picks out of it ala Kevin Kolb and AJ Feeley.
_________________

[Pugger]

[Pugger]

[jrry32]

[goldfishwars]

[Jellyfish]

Mid-round(3-5) QB's that are currently starters for the team that drafted them:

Nick Foles, 0 starts
Russell Wilson, 10 starts

Matt Schaub should also be mentioned, as he was traded away for two 2nd rounders.

Still, not worth it.....


It's funny, but late round/undrafted QB's seem to be better than mid-round QB's, and there is probably a reason for it. The mid-rounders are the guys that have some huge flaw, but on the other hand some huge strong point, which makes scouts fall in love with them and think their coaches can fix them(which almost never seems to happen). The late rounders and undrafted guys who end up making it, are almost always guys from small colleges, or guys who saw limited time on the field in college, so they couldn't be scouted as well as the big school guys.

Here are the rounds current starting QB's were picked

QB

1st 23,5 (Vick counted as ½)
2nd 2,5 (Kolb counted as ½)
3rd 1,5 (Foles counted as ½)
4th 0
5th 0,5 (Skelton counted as ½)
6th 1
7th 2
Und. 1
_________________

[steelcurtain29]

I actually would argue that teams should do it more often.

You can argue Kevin O'Connell, but someone like Kirk Cousins is a must-pick. I think the Redskins made a very bold move by selecting him, but at the same time it was an excellent move.

Why not select a QB who was a good college QB for more than 1-2 years on a well-known team? If you made the argument with guys like Dan LeFevour, I'd understand. But for someone like Nick Foles or Cousins; I think they're excellent picks.

Quarterback is clearly the most important position in the game. No QB is superman. They do get injured, and it changes your team's offensive gameplan completely when he's injured. Teams have to have back-up plans. You can't go "Seasons over" because you lost your QB.

In short, you can't throw away a season over one QB being injured. The Patriots didn't select Mallett for no reason. If he comes in; no one expects Tom Brady. However, no one wants someone to lead your team off a cliff. You need a back-up plan to assure that you don't take 2 steps back everyone you try to take one forward.

Here's the kicker. If you can find someone who is talented enough to be a starting QB on top of what you got, you've either found a future replacement, or trade him for much higher value than you paid for him.

Packers drafted Flynn in the 7th round. They nearly traded him for a 1st.
Falcons drafted Matt Schaub in the mid-3rd. The return was that of a top-20 pick (two seconds and swapped firsts).

While it is a gamble, it's definitely something teams with depth, or teams in dire need have to try. The return you get for a QB that pans out (whether it's for your future or trading to another team) is far more valuable than that of say, finding a great player in rounds 3 through 5.

Consider this; what if Wallace and Schaub were in the same draft class. Wallace goes 84th overall; becomes an elite WR. Schaub goes 90th overall; becomes a top-10 QB.

Wallace can be traded for a 1st and signed long-term; no one bites.

Schaub throws less than 100 passes in his first three years in the NFL and shows some promise; Texans give two seconds and drop back 2 picks in the first round of the upcoming draft.

Not all QB's will go down this road, but look at the value? Mike Wallace was a very young WR, who was breaking NFL receiving records with his speed and playmaking abilities and no one would give up a first to keep him for the rest of his career. Schaub showed promise behind a clipboard for most of his time in Atlanta and he got his original draft team their original draft value back plus the value of a first round pick.

If you are smart about drafting QB's in the middle rounds of the draft, the payout can be explosive.
_________________
Come Follow My Oakland Multi-Sport Franchise!

[xjayex]

Teams waste mid round picks on qb's because Tom Brady.

[jrry32]

[PARROTHEAD]

[Pugger]

The real question here is why is it a waste to draft a QB in later rounds but it is completely acceptable for other positions?
_________________

[J Pep 4 Step]

4th and 5th round picks are for depth and projects. Why shouldnt teams take QBs in those rounds?
_________________