You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum.
This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.


 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Overall Draft Thoughts
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Chicago Bears
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ForteOz


Joined: 03 Sep 2013
Posts: 1148
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gah112 wrote:
That doesn't really add up. There are about 10 "Franchise QBs" currently playing who were drafted outside the top 15.

Not only that, but the timelines make it difficult to build a good defense with a QB in his prime. A recent pattern among Super Bowl winners (aside from the Patriots Super Bowls) has been an elite defense and a cheap QB. The Giants, Seahawks, and Ravens haven't had the same level of success after they paid their QBs. Once a QB hits his prime, he typically becomes a salary cap albatross that makes building a quality team difficult.

It is even true of the Patriots to a degree. The cap hit for Brady is ridiculously low considering he is either the best or second best QB in the league.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chewtoy


Joined: 16 Aug 2014
Posts: 46
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ForteOz wrote:
Chewtoy wrote:

My apologies - I didn't mean to claim that is the ONLY way to build a team. Just that it is the best way. And it is indisputably the best way for a simple reason: Math.

Studies have shown that Qb's taken at the top of the draft (top 5) succeed at a much higher rate than those taken later (first round), who in turn succeed at a higher rate than 2nd rounders, and so on. Its been a while since I looked at the numbers, but it is something like 50%, 25%, 20%, and then decreasing by 5-10% per round - anything later than a 5th tends to mostly be a waste of time (Tom Brady excluded).

In addition to the rate of success, there are roster limitations. For that reason, drafting two late first rounders (or 5 4th rounders, etc) are not the equivalent of drafting one top 5 Qb because it uses up roster spots and training reps. The roster constraints make it more valuable to have one big bet than multiple little ones. Ultimately it is best to get a top 5 pick at Qb, and that is easiest to do when you are bad. If you have already developed a good defense, you tend to be at least passable, probably drafting in the teens to early 20's, and out of range of the highest return rate Qb's. The odds are pretty good using this method that you will end up the mid 2000's bears, bouncing between Rex Grossman and a variety of similar caliber Qb's, never quite finding the Qb you need to REALLY compete (at least not on a sustainable level)

Finally, it comes back to the timelines - you can build the defense first, but that means you have to maintain an entire unit (11 players with no glaring holes long enough for the Qb to develop to being at least passable and preferably dominant. Most great defenses only stay "great" for 3-4 years because it is hard to maintain the skill, youth, health, and coaching required to keep an entire unit elite. The maintenance cost of keeping up the defense coupled with the narrow window AND the learning curve of a Qb prospect means that USUALLY you want the Qb first.


Again, I'm basing this all on odds. You can get lucky using any strategy. People win the lotto, too, but that doesn't make it a wise retirement investment. The goal should be to maximize your chance to rise, and THAT goal is best served by finding your Qb first.

Again, you make a lot of claims, I'll try to address them in order.

Re: the diminishing returns of late round picks on QB's. I would argue that this effect is true of all positions, although it may be more pronounced for QB's in the sense that it is focused in the top 5 overall picks, where you are not as likely to see as many safeties (for instance) chosen. If there is a numerical metric for this effect, how does it compare with other positions?

Re: roster limitations. If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is it is better to come away from the draft with one or two major impact players than a handful of merely 'good' players, because the net benefit of those picks is the relative upgrade over the players whose roster spot they have taken.
This is only a problem for talent laden rosters. This doesn't apply to us. In fact my argument on the draft day thread was the exact OPPOSITE of your position, in that teams like Houston and KC can much more easily afford to invest in a single impact position like QB, because they have a much deeper and more robust roster than we do. In other words, they are much closer to being one player away than we are.


And finally, regarding timelines, I agree with much of your assessment. But I would point out that the 3-4 year window of an 'elite' defense exactly coincides with the window you have with a rookie QB's initial, cheap contract. And the bar for success within that timeframe is lower, because you are really just looking for a competent game manager who can occasionally flash signs of greatness.

Outside of a few sublime talents (Rodgers, Brady, Peyton), all of those other 'franchise QBs' need competent, at a minimum, supporting casts, both on offense and defense, to truly compete. It is fun to pretend we just got the next Brady, who can throw it to UDFA's and former water boys and still get 4000 yards, but if we are LUCKY and we end up with one of those second tier of franchise QBs (the Rivers', Big Ben's, Eli's, Flacco's, Ryan's, Netwon's of the world) then we will need a full roster of talent to succeed, and that process starts now, not 5 years from now.


Brevity because I'm on a cell phone, not because of tone/emotion.

1.) It is true of all positions. That is why point 2 is so important.
2.) You did NOT understand my roster size point (which means I failed to explain it). Roster limitations matter in this instance because they prevent you from replacing quality with quantity. Say you wanted a 50% chance at landing a franchise qb. You could take 1 top 5 qb (50%), 2 late first rounders (25% each) or five 4th rounders (about 10% each) and have approximately the same odds EXCEPT that roster sizes and practice snaps make quantity Immpractical at qb. You get 2, maybe three on the roster. The same limitation does not apply to any other position. Teams routinely draft 2-3 wr, cb, rb, or lb in the same draft. Bottom line, not only is qb the most critical, it is the only position quality is FAR superior to quantity because of roster limitations.
3.) My contention is that top teams need both a defense and a Qb. Qbs are harder to get after you have a defense than vice versa because the window is larger for a Qb than any other position. Again, this isn't a bold statement. Bigger windows mean more time. More time means more opportunities to get it right.

Someone else brought up the Seahawks. Yes, drafting a 3rd round all pro is going to get you further than investing big money at the position. Just be aware, Russell Wilson is RARE. Like half the odds of success as Rex Grossman's pick who Chicago drafted in the same situation) rare. For every time you get Wilson, you will get Grossman and blow your window 6 times. So yes, the Seahawks did it. And yes it worked. And yes it's still a terrible strategy moving forward.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Superman(DH23)


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 19907
Location: Abdi on the sick sig
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gah112 wrote:
That doesn't really add up. There are about 10 "Franchise QBs" currently playing who were drafted outside the top 15.

Not only that, but the timelines make it difficult to build a good defense with a QB in his prime. A recent pattern among Super Bowl winners (aside from the Patriots Super Bowls) has been an elite defense and a cheap QB. The Giants, Seahawks, and Ravens haven't had the same level of success after they paid their QBs. Once a QB hits his prime, he typically becomes a salary cap albatross that makes building a quality team difficult.
What 10 "Franchise QBs" are currently playing that were drafted after the top 15. I've got Brady, Brees, Wilson, Rodgers, Prescott (a tad early to say he's a franchise QB but I'll allow it), Dalton (and I don't really count him), Carr
_________________

2013 Bears Forum Mike Ditka Award Winner
2014 Adopt-A-Bear Alshon Jeffery
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Superman(DH23)


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 19907
Location: Abdi on the sick sig
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chewtoy wrote:
ForteOz wrote:
Chewtoy wrote:

My apologies - I didn't mean to claim that is the ONLY way to build a team. Just that it is the best way. And it is indisputably the best way for a simple reason: Math.

Studies have shown that Qb's taken at the top of the draft (top 5) succeed at a much higher rate than those taken later (first round), who in turn succeed at a higher rate than 2nd rounders, and so on. Its been a while since I looked at the numbers, but it is something like 50%, 25%, 20%, and then decreasing by 5-10% per round - anything later than a 5th tends to mostly be a waste of time (Tom Brady excluded).

In addition to the rate of success, there are roster limitations. For that reason, drafting two late first rounders (or 5 4th rounders, etc) are not the equivalent of drafting one top 5 Qb because it uses up roster spots and training reps. The roster constraints make it more valuable to have one big bet than multiple little ones. Ultimately it is best to get a top 5 pick at Qb, and that is easiest to do when you are bad. If you have already developed a good defense, you tend to be at least passable, probably drafting in the teens to early 20's, and out of range of the highest return rate Qb's. The odds are pretty good using this method that you will end up the mid 2000's bears, bouncing between Rex Grossman and a variety of similar caliber Qb's, never quite finding the Qb you need to REALLY compete (at least not on a sustainable level)

Finally, it comes back to the timelines - you can build the defense first, but that means you have to maintain an entire unit (11 players with no glaring holes long enough for the Qb to develop to being at least passable and preferably dominant. Most great defenses only stay "great" for 3-4 years because it is hard to maintain the skill, youth, health, and coaching required to keep an entire unit elite. The maintenance cost of keeping up the defense coupled with the narrow window AND the learning curve of a Qb prospect means that USUALLY you want the Qb first.


Again, I'm basing this all on odds. You can get lucky using any strategy. People win the lotto, too, but that doesn't make it a wise retirement investment. The goal should be to maximize your chance to rise, and THAT goal is best served by finding your Qb first.

Again, you make a lot of claims, I'll try to address them in order.

Re: the diminishing returns of late round picks on QB's. I would argue that this effect is true of all positions, although it may be more pronounced for QB's in the sense that it is focused in the top 5 overall picks, where you are not as likely to see as many safeties (for instance) chosen. If there is a numerical metric for this effect, how does it compare with other positions?

Re: roster limitations. If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is it is better to come away from the draft with one or two major impact players than a handful of merely 'good' players, because the net benefit of those picks is the relative upgrade over the players whose roster spot they have taken.
This is only a problem for talent laden rosters. This doesn't apply to us. In fact my argument on the draft day thread was the exact OPPOSITE of your position, in that teams like Houston and KC can much more easily afford to invest in a single impact position like QB, because they have a much deeper and more robust roster than we do. In other words, they are much closer to being one player away than we are.


And finally, regarding timelines, I agree with much of your assessment. But I would point out that the 3-4 year window of an 'elite' defense exactly coincides with the window you have with a rookie QB's initial, cheap contract. And the bar for success within that timeframe is lower, because you are really just looking for a competent game manager who can occasionally flash signs of greatness.

Outside of a few sublime talents (Rodgers, Brady, Peyton), all of those other 'franchise QBs' need competent, at a minimum, supporting casts, both on offense and defense, to truly compete. It is fun to pretend we just got the next Brady, who can throw it to UDFA's and former water boys and still get 4000 yards, but if we are LUCKY and we end up with one of those second tier of franchise QBs (the Rivers', Big Ben's, Eli's, Flacco's, Ryan's, Netwon's of the world) then we will need a full roster of talent to succeed, and that process starts now, not 5 years from now.


Brevity because I'm on a cell phone, not because of tone/emotion.

1.) It is true of all positions. That is why point 2 is so important.
2.) You did NOT understand my roster size point (which means I failed to explain it). Roster limitations matter in this instance because they prevent you from replacing quality with quantity. Say you wanted a 50% chance at landing a franchise qb. You could take 1 top 5 qb (50%), 2 late first rounders (25% each) or five 4th rounders (about 10% each) and have approximately the same odds EXCEPT that roster sizes and practice snaps make quantity Immpractical at qb. You get 2, maybe three on the roster. The same limitation does not apply to any other position. Teams routinely draft 2-3 wr, cb, rb, or lb in the same draft. Bottom line, not only is qb the most critical, it is the only position quality is FAR superior to quantity because of roster limitations.
3.) My contention is that top teams need both a defense and a Qb. Qbs are harder to get after you have a defense than vice versa because the window is larger for a Qb than any other position. Again, this isn't a bold statement. Bigger windows mean more time. More time means more opportunities to get it right.

Someone else brought up the Seahawks. Yes, drafting a 3rd round all pro is going to get you further than investing big money at the position. Just be aware, Russell Wilson is RARE. Like half the odds of success as Rex Grossman's pick who Chicago drafted in the same situation) rare. For every time you get Wilson, you will get Grossman and blow your window 6 times. So yes, the Seahawks did it. And yes it worked. And yes it's still a terrible strategy moving forward.
Wilson is extremely rare, b/c if he's 6'2" he'd have been a top 5 pick. Some of the best QB tape around that year and previous at NC state. Teams foolishly believed that his height was going to prevent him from being successful, even though he played behind a near NFL caliber OL at Wisconsin.
_________________

2013 Bears Forum Mike Ditka Award Winner
2014 Adopt-A-Bear Alshon Jeffery
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chewtoy


Joined: 16 Aug 2014
Posts: 46
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Superman(DH23) wrote:
gah112 wrote:
That doesn't really add up. There are about 10 "Franchise QBs" currently playing who were drafted outside the top 15.

Not only that, but the timelines make it difficult to build a good defense with a QB in his prime. A recent pattern among Super Bowl winners (aside from the Patriots Super Bowls) has been an elite defense and a cheap QB. The Giants, Seahawks, and Ravens haven't had the same level of success after they paid their QBs. Once a QB hits his prime, he typically becomes a salary cap albatross that makes building a quality team difficult.
What 10 "Franchise QBs" are currently playing that were drafted after the top 15. I've got Brady, Brees, Wilson, Rodgers, Prescott (a tad early to say he's a franchise QB but I'll allow it), Dalton (and I don't really count him), Carr


You missed cousins and Bridgewater may get a pity half vote because he was on his way to maybe being ok pre injury. So 8-8.5. I say that qualifies as "about" 10.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chewtoy


Joined: 16 Aug 2014
Posts: 46
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Superman(DH23) wrote:
gah112 wrote:
That doesn't really add up. There are about 10 "Franchise QBs" currently playing who were drafted outside the top 15.

Not only that, but the timelines make it difficult to build a good defense with a QB in his prime. A recent pattern among Super Bowl winners (aside from the Patriots Super Bowls) has been an elite defense and a cheap QB. The Giants, Seahawks, and Ravens haven't had the same level of success after they paid their QBs. Once a QB hits his prime, he typically becomes a salary cap albatross that makes building a quality team difficult.
What 10 "Franchise QBs" are currently playing that were drafted after the top 15. I've got Brady, Brees, Wilson, Rodgers, Prescott (a tad early to say he's a franchise QB but I'll allow it), Dalton (and I don't really count him), Carr


You missed cousins and Bridgewater may get a pity half vote because he was on his way to maybe being ok pre injury. So 8-8.5. I say that qualifies as "about" 10.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chewtoy


Joined: 16 Aug 2014
Posts: 46
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Superman(DH23) wrote:
gah112 wrote:
That doesn't really add up. There are about 10 "Franchise QBs" currently playing who were drafted outside the top 15.

Not only that, but the timelines make it difficult to build a good defense with a QB in his prime. A recent pattern among Super Bowl winners (aside from the Patriots Super Bowls) has been an elite defense and a cheap QB. The Giants, Seahawks, and Ravens haven't had the same level of success after they paid their QBs. Once a QB hits his prime, he typically becomes a salary cap albatross that makes building a quality team difficult.
What 10 "Franchise QBs" are currently playing that were drafted after the top 15. I've got Brady, Brees, Wilson, Rodgers, Prescott (a tad early to say he's a franchise QB but I'll allow it), Dalton (and I don't really count him), Carr


You missed cousins and Bridgewater may get a pity half vote because he was on his way to maybe being ok pre injury. So 8-8.5. I say that qualifies as "about" 10.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bearsfan323


Joined: 02 Apr 2014
Posts: 2707
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chewtoy wrote:
Superman(DH23) wrote:
gah112 wrote:
That doesn't really add up. There are about 10 "Franchise QBs" currently playing who were drafted outside the top 15.

Not only that, but the timelines make it difficult to build a good defense with a QB in his prime. A recent pattern among Super Bowl winners (aside from the Patriots Super Bowls) has been an elite defense and a cheap QB. The Giants, Seahawks, and Ravens haven't had the same level of success after they paid their QBs. Once a QB hits his prime, he typically becomes a salary cap albatross that makes building a quality team difficult.
What 10 "Franchise QBs" are currently playing that were drafted after the top 15. I've got Brady, Brees, Wilson, Rodgers, Prescott (a tad early to say he's a franchise QB but I'll allow it), Dalton (and I don't really count him), Carr


You missed cousins and Bridgewater may get a pity half vote because he was on his way to maybe being ok pre injury. So 8-8.5. I say that qualifies as "about" 10.

I wouldn't say Cousins is a FQB, and Bridgewater had 14 TD's and 9 INT's in his last full year. He wasn't any good. No pity vote there
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gah112


Joined: 30 Jan 2015
Posts: 817
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You already named 7 guys. Add Flacco, Cousins, and Bridgewater and you're at 10.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Superman(DH23)


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 19907
Location: Abdi on the sick sig
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 4:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gah112 wrote:
You already named 7 guys. Add Flacco, Cousins, and Bridgewater and you're at 10.
flacco was taken in the top 15 and no im not counting cousins or bridgewater, especially with the vikes sending a 1st round pick to philly for Bradford. That tells you the vikes dont think teddy is a franchise qb
_________________

2013 Bears Forum Mike Ditka Award Winner
2014 Adopt-A-Bear Alshon Jeffery
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WindyCity


Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 16531
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It does not matter that some teams can find franchise QBs later in the draft or not in the top 10.

Because the Bears have proven over 80 years that they CANNOT.


The Bears finally took the chance to draft the #1 QB in the draft. Not the #4 QB that fell to them, not the deep sleeper that their QB expert identified.

The Bears do not need any variables in their selecting of a QB. They need all options available and to take the best one. The last time they invested a top 10 pick in a QB they won the Super Bowl.
_________________
John Fox
3-13 this season, 9-23 overall, 4-12 at home
Pathetic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
topwop1


Joined: 08 Jan 2008
Posts: 7792
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gah112 wrote:
You already named 7 guys. Add Flacco, Cousins, and Bridgewater and you're at 10.


Brooo Bridgewater isn't very good. Please don't try and anoint him as a franchise QB.

To me Flacco and Cousins are borderline franchise QB's. They're not quite there and just slightly better than average.

The true franchise QB's are:

Elite

- Brady
- Rodgers
- Luck
- Brees

Very Good

- Wilson
- Ryan
- Newton
- Rivers

Good

- Carr
- Manning
- Stafford

Every one else either the jury is still out on or is just slightly better than average or below.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GOGRIESE


Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Posts: 25944
Location: Austin Texas
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Superman(DH23) wrote:
gah112 wrote:
You already named 7 guys. Add Flacco, Cousins, and Bridgewater and you're at 10.
flacco was taken in the top 15 and no im not counting cousins or bridgewater, especially with the vikes sending a 1st round pick to philly for Bradford. That tells you the vikes dont think teddy is a franchise qb


Well more of his knee exploded
_________________

^^ props to LBC on the sig Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mudderfudder77


Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 2440
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gah112 wrote:
You already named 7 guys. Add Flacco, Cousins, and Bridgewater and you're at 10.



Your definition of 'franchise' is suspect.
_________________


Adopt-a-Bear Lamarr Houston

Man-child. QB-killer. Defender of the run. Destroyer of worlds
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Superman(DH23)


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 19907
Location: Abdi on the sick sig
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

topwop1 wrote:
gah112 wrote:
You already named 7 guys. Add Flacco, Cousins, and Bridgewater and you're at 10.


Brooo Bridgewater isn't very good. Please don't try and anoint him as a franchise QB.

To me Flacco and Cousins are borderline franchise QB's. They're not quite there and just slightly better than average.

The true franchise QB's are:

Elite

- Brady
- Rodgers
- Luck
- Brees

Very Good

- Wilson
- Ryan
- Newton
- Rivers

Good

- Carr
- Manning
- Stafford

Every one else either the jury is still out on or is just slightly better than average or below.
Take Stafford off the list and it's a pretty good one I think.
_________________

2013 Bears Forum Mike Ditka Award Winner
2014 Adopt-A-Bear Alshon Jeffery
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Chicago Bears All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 3 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group