Dibs

You quit once for 6 years. Try again.....only next time remember how dangerous it is to "just have one". Those are words of encouragement. Like you, I am one of those people who really feels it when quitting(it's easier for some....harder for others). I'm back on them again(long story)......but I'm planning to quit soon. I want to get all of my stars in alignment(so to speak) to give it the best chance. One thing I found helped greatly was eating mints. I put on a little bit of weight when I last quit but the actual quitting seemed easier with eating a tiny mint every 20 minutes. Good luck Bowery4

My point was that a team will designate a certain amount of the cap to the QB position. If they don't re-sign Kaepernick they can easily justify keeping Smith for an additional year for insurance as the overall money spent will be relatively low. Why wouldn't they just keep him? Heh....I'm likely wrong.....and we'll know soon enough anyway. If it turns out I'm right(& am the only one suggesting that they might keep him)....shout my praises in the inevitable "Smith staying a 49er" thread.

Reed will be an UFA this year. I can't believe that there would be any truth to the rumor that he will be signed by the Pats though. As far as I'm aware it would be against the rules for any teams to approach a player while he is still playing under contract for another team......the Patriots wouldn't cheat like that would they?

Football forums?

Thanks Nanker. I totally agree with the philosophy that you mention re: Patriots. From the looks, they started this philosophy from 1999(or at least they picked a QB in the year prior to Bellecheat). Though this philosophy isn't likely to get you a Star QB, it certainly seems a good strategy in obtaining a decent backup or a QB of Starter calibre. The other team that seems to follow this philosophy is the Packers. They have been a veritable QB factory having produced 2 Starter quality QBs who achieved multiple pro bowls(Hasselbeck & Brunnell) as well as Rodgers.....all having been backups to Favre. For those interested.... Patriots QB draft each year since 1999.... 7th, 6th, no, 4th, 6th, no, 7th, no, no , 3rd, 7th, 7th, 3rd, no Packers QB draft each year since 1989.... 3rd & 4th, 9th, no, 9th, 5th, no, 5th, 7th, 7th, 6th, 4th, no, no, 5th, no, no, 1st, 5th, no, 2nd & 7th, no, no, no, 7th Compared to the Bills.... Bills QB draft each year since 1995....(the two bolded "1st" represents our trade for Rob Johnson & Bledsoe) 2nd, no, no, 1st, no, no, no, no, 1st, 1st, no, no, 3rd, no, no, 7th, no, no. Nearly all of those Patriot & Packers draft picks were used when they actually had a Star/Starter in place whereas nearly all of ours were years where we didn't.

....well that just leaves KC, Jacksonville, Cardinals and Jets. So in your weak QB draft you are happy being left with the 5th choice?

At this point I have only broken down the QB position and the LB position(here: http://forums.twobil...ing-success-lb/).....more positions to come over the next few weeks/months. I actually made comment in the LB thread of the sense in doing exactly that....trading down for more picks. With regards to LBs, I wouldn't necessarily trade out of the 1st round to find a Starter as you have twice the chance to find one in the 1st over the 2nd round. I would however suggest that trading down in the 1st is a wise move as the percent success chance of 37% was fairly uniform throughout the 1st round.....though Star chance is doubled in the top 10 selections. The 2nd to 5th rounds however reveal quite a different situation. The Starter percentages for those rounds were... 2nd 18%, 3rd, 11%, 4/5th 8% When comparing percentage chances to the standard "Trade Value Chart" (here: http://www.drafttek....tradechart.html), it is clear that if one is after a LB(or two), trading down in/from the 2nd round will give a much higher chance of coming away with a starting calibre LB. Using this years Bills for example.... We have the #41 pick valued at 490 In theory, if that pick was traded for picks 57(2nd), 110(4th), 122(4th) & 140(5th).....(value 330+74+50+36=490).....and all were used to pick LBs(makes sense as we need multiple LBs).... The percentage difference is.... Pick 41 = 18% chance of drafting a 5+ year starter Picks 57+110+122+140 = 36% chance of drafting at least one 5+ year starter. Obviously there are a great number of variable not factored in.....but with the LB position it is clear that a good percent of LBs can be had in the 3rd to 5th rounds. Theoretically one could use the same process with the QB position.....but....there are a number of factors why it is not feasible to select and groom more than a couple of QBs at a time. It should also be noted how important it is in the modern NFL to have a Star QB......apart from the aberration of Brady there was not a single legit Star QB selected outside of the top 34 picks in the 20 years analyzed.

Your poem doesn't rhyme.

From the article.... "It makes him a luxury that the team can’t afford." Unless the 49ers are going to renegotiate with Kaepernick this off-season and give him a massive contract, I see no reason why Smith would be a luxury that they can't afford. Smith & Kaepernick's combined salary this year will be similar to what we are paying Fitz. If I was GM of the 49ers I'd be keeping Smith right where he is for another season to see if Kaepernick is the real deal or not.......and he is cheap insurance to have if their scrambling QB goes down during the season.

Though continuing the expansion teams aspect is virtually impossible(due to compensatory picks), I have come to see a relevance in separating the top of the 2nd round. As the only relevant "true" 2nd round pick was Favre (#33), I have done three new divisions.....Top 4......5-33.....34-end of 3rd round. I believe these divisions clearly show that the QB position is very easy for scouts to analyze. The few QBs who show that "special" potential rocket up the draft board and are invariably selected in the top 4 in the draft. Very few QBs(percentage wise) outside of this select group ever become solid starters for their drafted teams. R1 Pick 1-4 19 players selected 4 Stars 21% (1 in 4.8) 9 Starters 47% (1 in 2.1) 9 probowlers 47% (1 in 2.1) R1 Picks 5-33 25 players selected 2 Stars 8% (1 in 12.5) 4 Starters 16% (1 in 6.3) 8 probowlers 32% (1 in 3.1) Picks 34-end round 3 40 players selected 0 Stars 0 Starters 4 probowlers 10% (1 in 10)

I don't see that they would significantly brighten our prospects at all. The problem is that most of those names didn't hit their prime for the team that drafted them.....and their prime was very short lived. I see no value in drafting a QB who shows promise.....struggles for several seasons.....gets cut....gets picked up for a different team.....and then has a few good seasons for them. Plummer is a great example of this. Kerry Collins is also a great example as he actually went to the pro bowl for his drafting team. I'm sure the Panthers were hoping for more than a few decent(ish) years from their #5 draft pick. It matters little to the Panthers that he had several good seasons later in his career for several other teams.

Pro Bowl appearance is not very relevant when it comes to determining if your drafted QB is going to become the answer to your QB problems. There is a much higher percent of probowls/starter for the QB position than any other. Typically there are a minimum of 6 QBs each year who achieve pro bowl status....last year 8...this year 10. To name a few......Kerry Collins, Derek Anderson, Jake Delhomme, Jake Plummer, Trent Green, David Garrard, Marc Bulger.....were all pro bowlers who were not the answer for their drafting teams at QB.

If you discount the top 4 picks in the draft, you are indeed wrong. Outside of the top 4 picks there is usually zero to one QB drafted each year that becomes "NFL caliber". It seems to me (based on this study http://forums.twobil...ing-success-qb/) that in regards to scouting and talent evaluation, the QB position is one of the easiest positions to predict a starter. The few QBs who show that special potential rocket up the draft board and are invariably selected in the top 4 in the draft. Very few QBs(percentage wise) outside of this select group ever become solid starters for their drafted teams. Taken from my study.... 1986-2005 QBs who had 5+ years of 12+ starts for their drafted team* (Starter) Top 4 19 players selected 9 Starters (47%) Picks 5-33 QBs (have adjusted numbers thanks to KellyDog's point). 25 players selected 4 Starters (16%) Picks 34-end of round 3 40 players selected 0 Starters (0%) I don't want to presume what Polian meant.....but without clarification from him, I am doubtful that he is suggesting that none of the QBs "can" become a franchise QB.....just that there are none(at this point) that are graded as having a high chance of success(top 4 pick). To those posters promoting we wait till next season(2014)......unless we can get a top 4 pick which can net us one of these highly rated QB prospects....we have just as much chance this year of finding our guy (1 in 6) with our 1st round pick as next year.

The more important the position.....the more value that position has on draft day. IMO, in addition to the change of style in the NFL.....teams are more and more realizing just how important the QB position is. Simply looking at the starting SB QBs over the last 20+ years will give a great indication of the importance of the position. Many in this thread are saying that this QB is going to be a star or that QB is going to be a bust. The reality is that nobody actually knows and that all of the QBs have a chance to become HOFers......and the best educated guesses can only figure who might have a better chance. The question of reaching or overvaluing really comes down to.....is the 15% chance for your QB prospect to become a good NFL player a better choice than your 40% chance for your LB prospect to become a good NFL player with your 1st round pick?

1996

If we cut Mark Anderson it will not save any cap dollars......it will cost us $1.5M of cap space.

I guess I'm saying that for the actions he can be graded on....he can be graded(lol).....but for the "incompletes" and the overall he can't be graded....or he can, but those grades are useless. Many in this thread have been grading him on an "incomplete" area....his drafts.

I was just being a bit facetious. You are 100%....neither is the smart way to go.

How can you rate two of his biggest decisions in Darius & Gilmore....let alone the entire 3 years of draft picks he has orchestrated? In a few years he may look like a genius....or a complete ass. Any attempt to rate him at this point is relatively futile.

Hi all, This is the second in a series of threads where I will be breaking down past drafts by individual position. First thread on QBs here… http://forums.twobil...ing-success-qb/ I do this for my own curiosity….and hope you find it of interest as well. Every year, fans & media talk about the draft in relation to plugging holes of weakness on a team. The assumption tends to be that any player drafted in the 1st(particularly high picks), 2nd, 3rd and sometimes 4th round will solve the problems of that team at the given position. I will be endeavouring to ascertain the likelihood of teams actually achieving this for each position. I will be using strict unbiased criteria to avoid personal opinion affecting the results. The criteria I am setting for a player to be considered to “plug a hole” of need is: (Starter) Having played as a starter for the drafting team(12+ starts) for 5+ seasons. I am also determining Stars: 4+ Pro Bowls for the drafting team. And also for a bit of fun am denoting the number of players that achieve 1+ Pro Bowls for the drafting team. I will be breaking the draft up into rounds 1, 2, 3, 4/5, 6/7, as well as breaking the 1st round into 5 sections. #1, #2-#4, #5-#10, #11-#20 & #21-#32. The data pool will be selected from 20 years of drafts from 1986 – 2005. This ensures all draftees have a full 8 years of NFL experience to achieve my benchmarks. (Rounded to the nearest percent) Linebackers Round 1 63 players selected 8 Stars 13% (1 in 7.9) 23 Starters 37% (1 in 2.7) 21 probowlers 33% (1 in 3) R1 Pick 1 1 player selected 0 Stars 0 Starters 0 probowlers R1 Picks 2-4 8 players selected 2 Stars 25% (1 in 4) 3 Starters 38% (1 in 2.7) 4 probowlers 50% (1 in 2) R1 Picks 5-10 12 players selected 2 Stars 17% (1 in 6) 4 Starters 33% (1 in 3) 3 probowlers 25% (1 in 4) R1 Picks 11-20 28 players selected 1 Stars 4% (1 in 28) 11 Starters 39% (1 in 2.6) 10 probowlers 36% (1 in 2.8) R1 Picks 21-32 14 players selected 3 Stars 21% (1 in 4.7) 5 Starters 36% (1 in 2.8) 4 probowlers 29% (1 in 3.5) Round 2 89 players selected 2 Stars 2% (1 in 44.5) 16 Starters 18% (1 in 5.6) 11 probowlers 12% (1 in 8.1) Round 3 92 players selected 3 Stars 3% (1 in 30.7) 10 Starters 11% (1 in 9.2) 8 probowlers 9% (1 in 11.5) Rounds 4/5 169 players selected 1 Stars 1% (1 in 169) 13 Starters 8% (1 in 13) 9 probowlers 5% (1 in 18.8) Rounds 6/7 182 players selected 1 Stars 1% (1 in 182) 5 Starters 3% (1 in 36.4) 5 probowlers 3% (1 in 36.4) Notes & Observations: In the unique situation of Cornelius Bennett, I counted him as a Bills’ draftee in relation to the criteria used. It should be noted that there were a large number of LBs that had promising careers cut short due to injury concerns. Obviously the percentages reflect the injury issue. There were also a noticeable number of LBs who were regular starters that changed teams after their rookie contracts expired and continued as starters for their new teams. This perhaps suggests that most teams believe that a starting LB is relatively easy to replace via the draft and are unwilling to spend veteran money on the position. However, as the statistics show, these teams are quite mistaken. Even with these roster changed LBs factored in, one would need to draft 2 LBs in the 1st round to realistically hope to get one of starting quality. I was quite astonished to see that the success rate for the 1st round Starters is basically the same throughout the entire round(37%). Stars however are twice as frequent in the top 10(19%) compared to the 11-32 range(10%). My thoughts in relation to these statistics and the Bills needing multiple LBs in the upcoming draft are that assuming we do not draft a LB in the first round, trading down in the 2nd round and picking up additional 3rd, 4th & 5th round draft picks to spend on LBs would statistically give a far greater chance of success than staying put at #10 in the 2nd round.

I agree that giving Fitz a huge contract was a huge mistake.....as was him not spending draft capital on QB potential. Huge mistakes. The bolded above is a common misconception by fans. The misconception is that people can actually know how a player is going to pan out in the NFL. In regards to QBs, there has only been 2 in the past 20 years that have been close to a sure thing(Manning & Luck). All other QBs are a hit/miss proposition. No team expected Kaepernick or Wilson to become franchise QBs (as there 4th & 3rd round selections show). The actual chance that one of them would become a star QB (from looking at previous drafting history) was miniscule. Tiny. On a non QB note..... I don't understand how people can difinitively rate how Nix has fared to this point. It usually takes several years to see how draft picks will pan out. Mario achieved 10+ sacks with injury this year....and only 13 TEs had more yards and 6 TEs more TDs than Chandler. The QB situation aside, there is a decent chance that he may well have drafted well above the curve. He might end up with 3 out of 3 1st rounders becoming stars.....Spiller is already one, DTs often break through in their 3rd year....and Gilmore has had one season. 2nd round Glenn could become a probowler. 4th round rookie Bradham improved as the year went on and could become solid. Carrington could become a probowler in our new D. If all of those things happen then he will have done an amazing job(apart from the QB situation). Even if only two thirds of those things happen it will still be well above the curve. I am not saying that he has done a good job.....I am saying it is way too early to be saying that he hasn't.....yet.

The only area where we sometimes tip is to the waiters/waitresses at a good restaurant. Generally tipping is alien to us(& most of the western world?). Effectively our system runs as if the tips are automatically calculated by the employer.....factored into the bill....and the employee is paid a higher wage than if there were tipping. .....or put bluntly.....people here are paid enough(theoretically) to live on so tipping is not necessary.

I'd think obesity would have a greater impact than smoking does in regards to longevity. Far more prevalent than smoking too. Would people be willing to sacrifice sugar and fatty foods to live 10 years longer? There is an old saying.... "You never see a really old fat person."

Cardinals