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
G08


Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Posts: 6916
Location: World Championsville
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 11:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So these lists look like 10 or 11 franchise QBs out of 32 teams, or 1 out of every 3 teams has a franchise QB.

Interesting.
_________________
topwop1 wrote:
My point is you can find a franchise guy like [Derek] Carr in every draft


"I thought it was a stroke of genius. You give [Pace] an A++++ for the move to get Trubisky. That was magnificient." - Bill Polian
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
topwop1


Joined: 08 Jan 2008
Posts: 7792
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Superman(DH23) wrote:
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.


I somehow forgot Big Ben..my bad. Replace Stafford with him and move into 'Very Good' category and I think this list sums it up pretty well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chewtoy


Joined: 16 Aug 2014
Posts: 46
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 12:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think these lists are incomplete. The following are all at least good Qb's, with several of them positioned to move up the list:

Flacco
Dalton
Marriotta
Prescott
Cousins
Wentz
Stafford
Winston
Palmer

Some of these guys have warts, but all of them are better than any Qb in Bears history and all of them are capable of leading a superbowl contender.

20 franchise caliber quarterbacks. Some are nearing the end, some are still too young/early in their career to be a REAL solid bet, but fully 2/3rds of the league has a Qb that could lead a superbowl team.

Chicago hasn't cracked the this list since Cutler hurt his knee in the Packer's playoff game.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dll2000


Joined: 04 Apr 2016
Posts: 517
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="ForteOz"]
Chewtoy wrote:
My thoughts:

Cleveland *clearly* favors this approach. They have chosen not to pursue any of the top QB prospects for two years in a row now, and have accumulated a boatload of high picks, while taking some low risk shots here and there on mid round QBs (Cook, Kizer).

SF *appears* to favor this approach, although it's possible they just didn't like this years QB prospects, hard to draw a conclusion after one year.

I think comparing the rebuilding efforts of these 3 teams over the next few years will answer whether 'getting the QB first' is the only viable strategy. At this point, I'm putting my money on Cleveland.




I agree, and I think anyone objective would agree that Cleveland is better positioned to be good in 2 -3 years because whoever they play at QB will be surrounded by a lot of top tier talent; however that is after three years of absolute tanking and a block buster trade that isn't always available.

(Side note: Still don't know why Browns let Pryor go - stupid).

Worth noting that Cleveland will probably be bad to mediocre AGAIN this year and is setting up for 2018 turn around goal that might again still be short of playoffs. That is a lot of suffering for a long time. It has to pay off ala Cubs or it was a lot for nothing.

A better and more fair comparison in the competing approaches right now is SF vs. Bears. See how those two teams turn out in 2-3 years. Starting from comparable talent and draft slot in 2017. SF went talent acquisition and Bears went QB.

Another better comparison is Philly vs. Cleveland. Cleveland went big trade in 2016 and Philly went QB. Both had very little talent going into 2016 and took the separate paths.

Not saying your wrong in your points, just some observations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gah112


Joined: 30 Jan 2015
Posts: 817
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 12:54 pm    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


Flacco was taken 18th and Cousins is certainly a franchise QB. He's been tagged twice and the Redskins have been trying to extend his contract throughout that time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
51to54


Joined: 29 Jun 2008
Posts: 1809
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chewtoy wrote:
I think these lists are incomplete. The following are all at least good Qb's, with several of them positioned to move up the list:

Flacco
Dalton
Marriotta
Prescott
Cousins
Wentz
Stafford
Winston
Palmer

Some of these guys have warts, but all of them are better than any Qb in Bears history and all of them are capable of leading a superbowl contender.

20 franchise caliber quarterbacks. Some are nearing the end, some are still too young/early in their career to be a REAL solid bet, but fully 2/3rds of the league has a Qb that could lead a superbowl team.

Chicago hasn't cracked the this list since Cutler hurt his knee in the Packer's playoff game.

While I mostly agree in the modern NFL per Bears' QBs, NFL history does not agree.

Sid Luckman. MVP 1943. Led league in passing 3 seasons. Set NFL records in passing TD percentage for a game and season. 4 championships.

I'd also take McMahon over everyone in the list now, except for maybe Palmer. McMahon is certainly in the modern era. Set the NFL record with 22 consecutive regular season wins. McMahon's effectiveness was curtailed by the extremely late body slam by the Packers' Martin in the 1986 season so his career could have been even better.

Interestingly enough, both Luckman and McMahon were punters with Luckman getting first team all-pro 5 times.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dll2000


Joined: 04 Apr 2016
Posts: 517
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

51to54 wrote:
Chewtoy wrote:
I think these lists are incomplete. The following are all at least good Qb's, with several of them positioned to move up the list:

Flacco
Dalton
Marriotta
Prescott
Cousins
Wentz
Stafford
Winston
Palmer

Some of these guys have warts, but all of them are better than any Qb in Bears history and all of them are capable of leading a superbowl contender.

20 franchise caliber quarterbacks. Some are nearing the end, some are still too young/early in their career to be a REAL solid bet, but fully 2/3rds of the league has a Qb that could lead a superbowl team.

Chicago hasn't cracked the this list since Cutler hurt his knee in the Packer's playoff game.

While I mostly agree in the modern NFL per Bears' QBs, NFL history does not agree.

Sid Luckman. MVP 1943. Led league in passing 3 seasons. Set NFL records in passing TD percentage for a game and season. 4 championships.

I'd also take McMahon over everyone in the list now, except for maybe Palmer. McMahon is certainly in the modern era. Set the NFL record with 22 consecutive regular season wins. McMahon's effectiveness was curtailed by the extremely late body slam by the Packers' Martin in the 1986 season so his career could have been even better.

Interestingly enough, both Luckman and McMahon were punters with Luckman getting first team all-pro 5 times.


I almost made these same points. People's historical perspective is generally limited to their lifetime.

Cubs were a juggernaut way, way back in the day. Those players are largely forgotten for stars from relatively more recent days like Ryno, Banks, etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sugashane


Joined: 06 Jan 2013
Posts: 3309
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 2:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

51to54 wrote:
Chewtoy wrote:
I think these lists are incomplete. The following are all at least good Qb's, with several of them positioned to move up the list:

Flacco
Dalton
Marriotta
Prescott
Cousins
Wentz
Stafford
Winston
Palmer

Some of these guys have warts, but all of them are better than any Qb in Bears history and all of them are capable of leading a superbowl contender.

20 franchise caliber quarterbacks. Some are nearing the end, some are still too young/early in their career to be a REAL solid bet, but fully 2/3rds of the league has a Qb that could lead a superbowl team.

Chicago hasn't cracked the this list since Cutler hurt his knee in the Packer's playoff game.

While I mostly agree in the modern NFL per Bears' QBs, NFL history does not agree.

Sid Luckman. MVP 1943. Led league in passing 3 seasons. Set NFL records in passing TD percentage for a game and season. 4 championships.

I'd also take McMahon over everyone in the list now, except for maybe Palmer. McMahon is certainly in the modern era. Set the NFL record with 22 consecutive regular season wins. McMahon's effectiveness was curtailed by the extremely late body slam by the Packers' Martin in the 1986 season so his career could have been even better.

Interestingly enough, both Luckman and McMahon were punters with Luckman getting first team all-pro 5 times.


McMahon is highly overrated to me. He was barely above average and held up by one of the best teams in history. Orton would have been able to post a similar record on that team. I'd take any of the aforementioned QBs over him.

With Luckman you're spot on.
_________________
2013 Kyle Long Rookie of the Year Award

Adopt a Bear - Kyle Long (Two Season Streak)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chewtoy


Joined: 16 Aug 2014
Posts: 46
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 2:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Luckman's last game was 29 years before I was born. And I'm not exactly a spring chicken.

By all accounts he was a great Qb and I meant no offense to him. That said, his highest yardage total in a given season was 2,700 ish yards, which simply wouldn't cut it in today's NFL. For his era he was great. For the modern era, I would probably take just about anyone on the list above over him.

Again, I'm not trying to say he wasn't talented. And I had no intention (really) of lumping him in when I wrote earlier. But the man retired in the 50's. Even if he IS the exception to my statement, doesn't that just validate the sentiment?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ForteOz


Joined: 03 Sep 2013
Posts: 1148
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="dll2000"]
ForteOz wrote:
Chewtoy wrote:
My thoughts:

Cleveland *clearly* favors this approach. They have chosen not to pursue any of the top QB prospects for two years in a row now, and have accumulated a boatload of high picks, while taking some low risk shots here and there on mid round QBs (Cook, Kizer).

SF *appears* to favor this approach, although it's possible they just didn't like this years QB prospects, hard to draw a conclusion after one year.

I think comparing the rebuilding efforts of these 3 teams over the next few years will answer whether 'getting the QB first' is the only viable strategy. At this point, I'm putting my money on Cleveland.




I agree, and I think anyone objective would agree that Cleveland is better positioned to be good in 2 -3 years because whoever they play at QB will be surrounded by a lot of top tier talent; however that is after three years of absolute tanking and a block buster trade that isn't always available.

(Side note: Still don't know why Browns let Pryor go - stupid).

Worth noting that Cleveland will probably be bad to mediocre AGAIN this year and is setting up for 2018 turn around goal that might again still be short of playoffs. That is a lot of suffering for a long time. It has to pay off ala Cubs or it was a lot for nothing.

A better and more fair comparison in the competing approaches right now is SF vs. Bears. See how those two teams turn out in 2-3 years. Starting from comparable talent and draft slot in 2017. SF went talent acquisition and Bears went QB.

Another better comparison is Philly vs. Cleveland. Cleveland went big trade in 2016 and Philly went QB. Both had very little talent going into 2016 and took the separate paths.

Not saying your wrong in your points, just some observations.

All fair points.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ForteOz


Joined: 03 Sep 2013
Posts: 1148
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 12:20 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.
Thank you for clarifying.
I think you are misattributing the cause of your observed effect, and you also ignore some important distinctions between the various positions.
Before roster cutdowns in preseason, there is no limitation besides cap space to taking on as many QB's as possible. And teams do sometimes take on as many as 4 QB's before the final cut to 53. But this is short term (months) and perhaps your point is that the evaluation needs to be long term (years), which I will address later.

There is also less benefit to having multiple QB's of roughly equal ability, as only one can see the field at the same time, and are much less easily subbed in/out. They also get injured less, and so there is less need of keeping a third (or fourth) option.

But before getting sidetracked into a debate about quality vs quantity, I should just state that I don't think you can replace a quality player with quantity at ANY position, with two possible exceptions: RB, and WR *only if* you have a truly elite QB. So that is not a position I am advocating.

There is also trade capital being wasted in that if you have a backup QB who is capable of starting for another team, you could likely trade that QB for picks/players that will end up being a much bigger net benefit to your team than having a smaller drop off from #1 to #2 QB.

My point is that there are a number of factors to consider beyond just the limitation of practice reps as a resource to developing and evaluating a QB.

In short, if your 'roster limitations' argument was that it is impractical to keep 4 low-odds project QBs rostered on the chance that one of them turns out, well I agree, but that is not any different than other positions. I think this can be generalized by saying 'teams don't keep more than 2 project players at any position'.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ForteOz


Joined: 03 Sep 2013
Posts: 1148
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

G08 wrote:
So these lists look like 10 or 11 franchise QBs out of 32 teams, or 1 out of every 3 teams has a franchise QB.

Interesting.

That number does seem a bit low, but I assume some folks are reserving judgment on some of the younger QBs.
But I think it is pretty consistent year-in year-out that less than half of NFL teams have a 'franchise QB' (however you choose to define that).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
G08


Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Posts: 6916
Location: World Championsville
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ForteOz wrote:
G08 wrote:
So these lists look like 10 or 11 franchise QBs out of 32 teams, or 1 out of every 3 teams has a franchise QB.

Interesting.

That number does seem a bit low, but I assume some folks are reserving judgment on some of the younger QBs.
But I think it is pretty consistent year-in year-out that less than half of NFL teams have a 'franchise QB' (however you choose to define that).


Agreed. I think it's very, very difficult to find a franchise QB. They don't grow on trees, they're not available in every free agency, and they aren't available in every draft.

If you get one, count your lucky stars.
_________________
topwop1 wrote:
My point is you can find a franchise guy like [Derek] Carr in every draft


"I thought it was a stroke of genius. You give [Pace] an A++++ for the move to get Trubisky. That was magnificient." - Bill Polian
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gah112


Joined: 30 Jan 2015
Posts: 817
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Would it be considered a failure if Trubisky becomes an average QB who's consistently outside the top 8 of the NFL?

Let's say he becomes an Andy Dalton level QB. Does that result justify the cost?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
G08


Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Posts: 6916
Location: World Championsville
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gah112 wrote:
Would it be considered a failure if Trubisky becomes an average QB who's consistently outside the top 8 of the NFL?

Let's say he becomes an Andy Dalton level QB. Does that result justify the cost?


I'll be happy if he's top 10, man. Thrilled if he's top 5-8.

Dalton is a 3 time Pro Bowler... I'd be happy with that at QB, honestly.
_________________
topwop1 wrote:
My point is you can find a franchise guy like [Derek] Carr in every draft


"I thought it was a stroke of genius. You give [Pace] an A++++ for the move to get Trubisky. That was magnificient." - Bill Polian
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 4 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