Orton's Arm Posted February 5, 2011 Posted February 5, 2011 I would not call the original post good points as much as it completely ignores the reality that not only were playoff worthy QBs like Favre, Vick, and even McNabb available as FAs but folks like young franchise eventual HOF players Favre and Young were traded away by TB. Elway and Eli Manning were both acquired by trade by the teams they led to SB wins. 1st round choice Dilfer was carried to an SB win by a team which intelligently used their draft for other positions. As pointed out as recently as the last SB, NO got their franchise QB through FA. Heck TB won an SB with a two time loser in FA- no one mistakes Brad Johnson for a franchise QB, but if the booby prize is merely winning an SB I would take it. This actually compares to what in many ways are the aberration of Peyton winning his one SB (he clearly is a franchise QB but the interesting thing is a franchise QB does not guarantee an SB win and also Pitts drafting RoboQB but then again maybe this incidence is just a co-incidence in terms of team building rather than a trend. The last QB drafted who helped his team to an SB before the aberration and coincidence was actually Troy Aikman drafted at the end of the 80s. The actual facts pretty directly contradict your claim that drafting a QB in the first is the way to go. i like the coincidence of drafting Brady in the 6th more than I like the co-incidence of drafting RoboQB in the 1st. I strongly disagree with the above post. It's true that Elway was originally drafted by the Baltimore Colts. But he was traded away without having played a down of football in the NFL in large part because he threatened to pursue a baseball career full-time rather than play for the Colts. What the Broncos did had a lot more in common with trading up for a draft pick than with trading for an established player who'd proven himself at the NFL level. That's even more true of the Eli Manning/Philip Rivers trade, which was made on draft day, shortly after the Giants had used the 4th overall pick on Rivers. None of those three players--Elway, Eli Manning, or Philip Rivers--had been signed by the teams which originally drafted them. To lump the acquisition of those three players into the same general category as the Bills trading for Drew Bledsoe would result in a highly erroneous understanding of the fundamentals of the situation. The latter was a real trade for an established NFL player, not a "let's trade our draft picks shortly after they've been used" trade. I agree that the Dilfer example represents a case where a team won a Super Bowl despite mediocre QB play. More generally, any time you build one of the three best defenses in NFL history, with players at or near the Pro Bowl level at literally every defensive position, plus a very good OL led by Hall of Fame-level LT Jon Ogden, plus a very good running game with Jamal Lewis, you can get by with mediocre QB play. As for Brad Johnson: while he wasn't a franchise QB, he was a solid starter. In the year the Bucs won the Super Bowl, Johnson played well enough to get selected to the Pro Bowl. Even though Tampa Bay had a very good defense, it's not like that defense had to compensate for mediocre QB play the way the Ravens of 2000 did. You mentioned Favre as an example of a franchise QB who'd been available in free agency. But there was a reason that guy was available: he looked old and past his prime with the Jets. He bounced back with the Vikings, at least for a while. But it's not like he was close to his old self; and his mistakes in the playoffs played a pivotal role in the Vikings' playoff loss. The problem with signing a franchise QB in the sunset years of his career is that if you're lucky, he'll give you a good year or two of solid play. (Though not nearly as solid as what he could have given in his prime.) Then there will likely be another year when he gives you lousy/washed-up play as your team's starter. Possibly dividing the locker room if you try to bench him. Once you finally get rid of him, you'll be right back where you started: looking for a QB once again. It's true that Drew Brees is a franchise QB who was acquired in free agency. But the circumstances which led to his availability were highly anomalous. First, the Chargers made the mistake of giving up on him too early; thus causing them to acquire Rivers (taken 4th overall). Secondly, there were injury concerns associated with him--injury concerns which led the Dolphins to (foolishly) choose Culpepper over him. Those concerns both reduced what other teams would be willing to trade away for him as well as the Chargers' own perceived value of him. Sure, it would be great if something like that happened again and the Bills were the beneficiary of it. But I don't think it's sound strategy to rely on something like that happening again. If you see the situation differently, then please identify your target QB. By that I mean a guy who a) either is or has the clear potential to be a franchise QB in the mold of Brees, b) whose team has either given up on him or is in the process of giving up on him, much like the Chargers did with Brees, and c) would be willing to sign with Buffalo as a free agent. If you can point to a guy like that, relying on a Drew Brees free agent strategy would be within the realm of credibility. You mentioned Tom Brady as an example of a late round QB who both proved to be a franchise QB and helped take his team to a Super Bowl win. But Tom Brady was drafted back in 2000. From 2001 to the present, no quarterback taken in rounds 4 - 7 of the draft has turned into a franchise QB. None. Taking a QB in round 4 or later and hoping he becomes the next Brady is an extremely low percentage play! If you're okay with taking a QB in round 2 or 3, you could point to Drew Brees (32nd overall) and Matt Schaub (3rd round) as examples of other non-first rounders who turned into franchise QBs. But those two players, plus Brady, are the only three franchise QBs found outside the first round in the last decade. That means that the average NFL franchise should expect to acquire a non-first round franchise QB about once every 106 years. As for whether a franchise QB is necessary to winning a Super Bowl, let's look at past Super Bowl winners 2000: Baltimore Ravens (Dilfer) 2001: Patriots (Brady) 2002: Bucs (Johnson) 2003: Patriots (Brady) 2004: Patriots (Brady) 2005: Steelers (Roethlisberger) 2006: Colts (Manning) 2007: Giants (E. Manning) 2008: Steelers (Roethlisberger) 2009: Saints (Brees) Of those ten Super Bowls, seven were won by teams with franchise QBs like Brady, Peyton Manning, Brees, or Ben Roethlisberger. Another was won by a team whose QB is on the cusp of becoming franchise: Eli Manning averaged 7.9 and 7.4 yards per attempt these last two seasons, which is definitely franchise QB territory. Another (the Bucs Super Bowl) was won by a QB who had a Pro Bowl year the season his team won. That leaves just one Super Bowl out of ten that was won by a team that received mediocre QB play. To compensate for Dilfer's mediocre play, the Ravens had to be insanely good on defense. Much better than any team has the right to be! If you don't have a franchise QB, it's very, very difficult to win the Super Bowl; and the odds will be heavily against you. Look at all the active franchise quarterbacks taken in the first round: Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Philip Rivers, arguably Eli Manning, Ben Roethlisberger, arguably Joe Flacco. Compare those six guys with the three active franchise QBs taken outside the first round (Brees, Brady, Schaub)! QB is the single most important position on the field. This desire to not use a first round pick on a QB (presumably so the pick could be used on some other position of lesser importance) is difficult for me to understand. Shouldn't you be most eager to use a first round pick on the most important position, second-most eager to use it on the second most-important position, and so on? If someone said, "Don't take a strong safety before the second round," it would make sense, because strong safety is typically not all that important. But don't take a quarterback before round 2? I just don't get that. If you wanted to argue that you should never reach for need at any position, and that you should only take a QB in the first if you have a first round grade on him, I'd agree with that. Wholeheartedly. But if a team needs a QB, and if it has an appropriately high grade on a QB when its first round pick comes up, the idea of preferring not to take a QB with that pick is, for me, unfathomable.
bobobonators Posted February 5, 2011 Posted February 5, 2011 I strongly disagree with the above post. It's true that Elway was originally drafted by the Baltimore Colts. But he was traded away without having played a down of football in the NFL in large part because he threatened to pursue a baseball career full-time rather than play for the Colts. What the Broncos did had a lot more in common with trading up for a draft pick than with trading for an established player who'd proven himself at the NFL level. That's even more true of the Eli Manning/Philip Rivers trade, which was made on draft day, shortly after the Giants had used the 4th overall pick on Rivers. None of those three players--Elway, Eli Manning, or Philip Rivers--had been signed by the teams which originally drafted them. To lump the acquisition of those three players into the same general category as the Bills trading for Drew Bledsoe would result in a highly erroneous understanding of the fundamentals of the situation. The latter was a real trade for an established NFL player, not a "let's trade our draft picks shortly after they've been used" trade. I agree that the Dilfer example represents a case where a team won a Super Bowl despite mediocre QB play. More generally, any time you build one of the three best defenses in NFL history, with players at or near the Pro Bowl level at literally every defensive position, plus a very good OL led by Hall of Fame-level LT Jon Ogden, plus a very good running game with Jamal Lewis, you can get by with mediocre QB play. As for Brad Johnson: while he wasn't a franchise QB, he was a solid starter. In the year the Bucs won the Super Bowl, Johnson played well enough to get selected to the Pro Bowl. Even though Tampa Bay had a very good defense, it's not like that defense had to compensate for mediocre QB play the way the Ravens of 2000 did. You mentioned Favre as an example of a franchise QB who'd been available in free agency. But there was a reason that guy was available: he looked old and past his prime with the Jets. He bounced back with the Vikings, at least for a while. But it's not like he was close to his old self; and his mistakes in the playoffs played a pivotal role in the Vikings' playoff loss. The problem with signing a franchise QB in the sunset years of his career is that if you're lucky, he'll give you a good year or two of solid play. (Though not nearly as solid as what he could have given in his prime.) Then there will likely be another year when he gives you lousy/washed-up play as your team's starter. Possibly dividing the locker room if you try to bench him. Once you finally get rid of him, you'll be right back where you started: looking for a QB once again. It's true that Drew Brees is a franchise QB who was acquired in free agency. But the circumstances which led to his availability were highly anomalous. First, the Chargers made the mistake of giving up on him too early; thus causing them to acquire Rivers (taken 4th overall). Secondly, there were injury concerns associated with him--injury concerns which led the Dolphins to (foolishly) choose Culpepper over him. Those concerns both reduced what other teams would be willing to trade away for him as well as the Chargers' own perceived value of him. Sure, it would be great if something like that happened again and the Bills were the beneficiary of it. But I don't think it's sound strategy to rely on something like that happening again. If you see the situation differently, then please identify your target QB. By that I mean a guy who a) either is or has the clear potential to be a franchise QB in the mold of Brees, b) whose team has either given up on him or is in the process of giving up on him, much like the Chargers did with Brees, and c) would be willing to sign with Buffalo as a free agent. If you can point to a guy like that, relying on a Drew Brees free agent strategy would be within the realm of credibility. You mentioned Tom Brady as an example of a late round QB who both proved to be a franchise QB and helped take his team to a Super Bowl win. But Tom Brady was drafted back in 2000. From 2001 to the present, no quarterback taken in rounds 4 - 7 of the draft has turned into a franchise QB. None. Taking a QB in round 4 or later and hoping he becomes the next Brady is an extremely low percentage play! If you're okay with taking a QB in round 2 or 3, you could point to Drew Brees (32nd overall) and Matt Schaub (3rd round) as examples of other non-first rounders who turned into franchise QBs. But those two players, plus Brady, are the only three franchise QBs found outside the first round in the last decade. That means that the average NFL franchise should expect to acquire a non-first round franchise QB about once every 106 years. As for whether a franchise QB is necessary to winning a Super Bowl, let's look at past Super Bowl winners2000: Baltimore Ravens (Dilfer) 2001: Patriots (Brady) 2002: Bucs (Johnson) 2003: Patriots (Brady) 2004: Patriots (Brady) 2005: Steelers (Roethlisberger) 2006: Colts (Manning) 2007: Giants (E. Manning) 2008: Steelers (Roethlisberger) 2009: Saints (Brees) Of those ten Super Bowls, seven were won by teams with franchise QBs like Brady, Peyton Manning, Brees, or Ben Roethlisberger. Another was won by a team whose QB is on the cusp of becoming franchise: Eli Manning averaged 7.9 and 7.4 yards per attempt these last two seasons, which is definitely franchise QB territory. Another (the Bucs Super Bowl) was won by a QB who had a Pro Bowl year the season his team won. That leaves just one Super Bowl out of ten that was won by a team that received mediocre QB play. To compensate for Dilfer's mediocre play, the Ravens had to be insanely good on defense. Much better than any team has the right to be! If you don't have a franchise QB, it's very, very difficult to win the Super Bowl; and the odds will be heavily against you. Look at all the active franchise quarterbacks taken in the first round: Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Philip Rivers, arguably Eli Manning, Ben Roethlisberger, arguably Joe Flacco. Compare those six guys with the three active franchise QBs taken outside the first round (Brees, Brady, Schaub)! QB is the single most important position on the field. This desire to not use a first round pick on a QB (presumably so the pick could be used on some other position of lesser importance) is difficult for me to understand. Shouldn't you be most eager to use a first round pick on the most important position, second-most eager to use it on the second most-important position, and so on? If someone said, "Don't take a strong safety before the second round," it would make sense, because strong safety is typically not all that important. But don't take a quarterback before round 2? I just don't get that. If you wanted to argue that you should never reach for need at any position, and that you should only take a QB in the first if you have a first round grade on him, I'd agree with that. Wholeheartedly. But if a team needs a QB, and if it has an appropriately high grade on a QB when its first round pick comes up, the idea of preferring not to take a QB with that pick is, for me, unfathomable. I don't completely disagree with you, but with the exception of the Brady & Manning in your list above (who are beyond simply being "franchise QBs" and enter the realm of legendary players), it can also be said that it's extremely difficult to win a super bowl without a dominating defense. Each and every one of those teams you listed above, again with the exception of Manning/colts and to an extent Brady/Pats, all had an exceptional defense (the saints D was second in the league in 2009 w/39 turnovers, though they did give up yards). To me this franchise QB talk is used too often. Give me a dominating defense, a smart QB who can operate the Offense, and you'll have a shot to win every year.
spartacus Posted February 5, 2011 Posted February 5, 2011 I don't completely disagree with you, but with the exception of the Brady & Manning in your list above (who are beyond simply being "franchise QBs" and enter the realm of legendary players), it can also be said that it's extremely difficult to win a super bowl without a dominating defense. Each and every one of those teams you listed above, again with the exception of Manning/colts and to an extent Brady/Pats, all had an exceptional defense (the saints D was second in the league in 2009 w/39 turnovers, though they did give up yards). To me this franchise QB talk is used too often. Give me a dominating defense, a smart QB who can operate the Offense, and you'll have a shot to win every year. if having a great defense is so important - why not hire a super-star defensive staff to build a great defense instead we hire a defensive guy with zero experience in converting or running the 3-4 defense which the GM and HC are adamant about implementing. That worked well last year - so now we bring in Wannstadt who has even less experience with converting or running a 3-4 defense. Green Bay wanted to change to a 3-4 so they hired an expert 3-4 DC in Dom Capers who quickly made the defense great. Instead the Bills hire boobs and clowns with no real plan Won;t much matter who the Bills pick on defense with this clown show running things If they take a QB, at least Chan might know what to do with him
Hplarrm Posted February 5, 2011 Posted February 5, 2011 As for whether a franchise QB is necessary to winning a Super Bowl, let's look at past Super Bowl winners 2000: Baltimore Ravens (Dilfer) 2001: Patriots (Brady) 2002: Bucs (Johnson) 2003: Patriots (Brady) 2004: Patriots (Brady) 2005: Steelers (Roethlisberger) 2006: Colts (Manning) 2007: Giants (E. Manning) 2008: Steelers (Roethlisberger) 2009: Saints (Brees) Agsin, the question at hand is not whether it is necessary (or even good) to have a franchise QB. The answer is yes (duh) The question is whether the Bills should draft a QB at #3 (see the thread title). I think the answer here is NO for several reasons: 1. Look at your own list and ask how many of these 10 winning QBs were drafted in the first round by the team they led to the SB. The answer is 2. The actual fact is that QBs capable of leading teams to the SB certainly and being reasonably dubbed a franchise QB can be had through other means than drafting a player in the 1st (much less at the Joey Harrington or near Ryan Leaf spots. It just seems completely counter to the facts that anyone would insist you MUST draft your franchise QB if you have the #3. Your own list says so. 2. The NFL is cool because it is the ultimate team game. This means you take a RoboQB IF you believe this rookie QB can be the thing which puts you over the top with the other players you have acquired who have you knocking on the door. You draft a Peyton if your OL has been heavily invested in so you can protect the franchise due to his incredibly quick release (and then you in real life are committing to be a perennial bridesmaid (or ring bearer actually since even with your franchise QB, investment in the OL, use of a high pick the next year when your franchise QB does nothing to improve your results as a rookie, but finally you supplement him with a great GM who builds a team, the best D minded HC in the league and have the best kicker in the business.. etc) History indicates your franchise QB does not lead you to the big win without a ton of help and actual team leadership. Even worse, given your OL is a player and a half away from adequacy it is really questionable in today's NFL whether your franchise QB even survives if he is your choice with a #1. Ironically I could potentially see the Bills taking Newton with the #3 and getting a big advantage out of this. However, my sense of how this works successfully in today's NFL is because Fitzpatrick is still your starting QB next year and as long as it makes sense. Newton actually gives you an immediate contribution because he gets used as mush as possible like Smith in NYJ and can play the QB position for you in the Wildcat offense. Ftizgerald has proven he has a good football head and is agile enough he can survive behind this OL. With newton allowing O genius Gailey to do even more with this O we still lose a lot of shootouts because our run stop game is so horrid, but at least its fun. Actually, the best outcome might be to trade down a few spots and get another second round pick and use both these second rounders to reinforce the D with another LB and in the deep pool of DL candidates.
Bill4Life Posted February 6, 2011 Author Posted February 6, 2011 (edited) I strongly disagree with the above post. It's true that Elway was originally drafted by the Baltimore Colts. But he was traded away without having played a down of football in the NFL in large part because he threatened to pursue a baseball career full-time rather than play for the Colts. What the Broncos did had a lot more in common with trading up for a draft pick than with trading for an established player who'd proven himself at the NFL level. That's even more true of the Eli Manning/Philip Rivers trade, which was made on draft day, shortly after the Giants had used the 4th overall pick on Rivers. None of those three players--Elway, Eli Manning, or Philip Rivers--had been signed by the teams which originally drafted them. To lump the acquisition of those three players into the same general category as the Bills trading for Drew Bledsoe would result in a highly erroneous understanding of the fundamentals of the situation. The latter was a real trade for an established NFL player, not a "let's trade our draft picks shortly after they've been used" trade. I agree that the Dilfer example represents a case where a team won a Super Bowl despite mediocre QB play. More generally, any time you build one of the three best defenses in NFL history, with players at or near the Pro Bowl level at literally every defensive position, plus a very good OL led by Hall of Fame-level LT Jon Ogden, plus a very good running game with Jamal Lewis, you can get by with mediocre QB play. As for Brad Johnson: while he wasn't a franchise QB, he was a solid starter. In the year the Bucs won the Super Bowl, Johnson played well enough to get selected to the Pro Bowl. Even though Tampa Bay had a very good defense, it's not like that defense had to compensate for mediocre QB play the way the Ravens of 2000 did. You mentioned Favre as an example of a franchise QB who'd been available in free agency. But there was a reason that guy was available: he looked old and past his prime with the Jets. He bounced back with the Vikings, at least for a while. But it's not like he was close to his old self; and his mistakes in the playoffs played a pivotal role in the Vikings' playoff loss. The problem with signing a franchise QB in the sunset years of his career is that if you're lucky, he'll give you a good year or two of solid play. (Though not nearly as solid as what he could have given in his prime.) Then there will likely be another year when he gives you lousy/washed-up play as your team's starter. Possibly dividing the locker room if you try to bench him. Once you finally get rid of him, you'll be right back where you started: looking for a QB once again. It's true that Drew Brees is a franchise QB who was acquired in free agency. But the circumstances which led to his availability were highly anomalous. First, the Chargers made the mistake of giving up on him too early; thus causing them to acquire Rivers (taken 4th overall). Secondly, there were injury concerns associated with him--injury concerns which led the Dolphins to (foolishly) choose Culpepper over him. Those concerns both reduced what other teams would be willing to trade away for him as well as the Chargers' own perceived value of him. Sure, it would be great if something like that happened again and the Bills were the beneficiary of it. But I don't think it's sound strategy to rely on something like that happening again. If you see the situation differently, then please identify your target QB. By that I mean a guy who a) either is or has the clear potential to be a franchise QB in the mold of Brees, b) whose team has either given up on him or is in the process of giving up on him, much like the Chargers did with Brees, and c) would be willing to sign with Buffalo as a free agent. If you can point to a guy like that, relying on a Drew Brees free agent strategy would be within the realm of credibility. You mentioned Tom Brady as an example of a late round QB who both proved to be a franchise QB and helped take his team to a Super Bowl win. But Tom Brady was drafted back in 2000. From 2001 to the present, no quarterback taken in rounds 4 - 7 of the draft has turned into a franchise QB. None. Taking a QB in round 4 or later and hoping he becomes the next Brady is an extremely low percentage play! If you're okay with taking a QB in round 2 or 3, you could point to Drew Brees (32nd overall) and Matt Schaub (3rd round) as examples of other non-first rounders who turned into franchise QBs. But those two players, plus Brady, are the only three franchise QBs found outside the first round in the last decade. That means that the average NFL franchise should expect to acquire a non-first round franchise QB about once every 106 years. As for whether a franchise QB is necessary to winning a Super Bowl, let's look at past Super Bowl winners 2000: Baltimore Ravens (Dilfer) 2001: Patriots (Brady) 2002: Bucs (Johnson) 2003: Patriots (Brady) 2004: Patriots (Brady) 2005: Steelers (Roethlisberger) 2006: Colts (Manning) 2007: Giants (E. Manning) 2008: Steelers (Roethlisberger) 2009: Saints (Brees) Of those ten Super Bowls, seven were won by teams with franchise QBs like Brady, Peyton Manning, Brees, or Ben Roethlisberger. Another was won by a team whose QB is on the cusp of becoming franchise: Eli Manning averaged 7.9 and 7.4 yards per attempt these last two seasons, which is definitely franchise QB territory. Another (the Bucs Super Bowl) was won by a QB who had a Pro Bowl year the season his team won. That leaves just one Super Bowl out of ten that was won by a team that received mediocre QB play. To compensate for Dilfer's mediocre play, the Ravens had to be insanely good on defense. Much better than any team has the right to be! If you don't have a franchise QB, it's very, very difficult to win the Super Bowl; and the odds will be heavily against you. Look at all the active franchise quarterbacks taken in the first round: Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Philip Rivers, arguably Eli Manning, Ben Roethlisberger, arguably Joe Flacco. Compare those six guys with the three active franchise QBs taken outside the first round (Brees, Brady, Schaub)! QB is the single most important position on the field. This desire to not use a first round pick on a QB (presumably so the pick could be used on some other position of lesser importance) is difficult for me to understand. Shouldn't you be most eager to use a first round pick on the most important position, second-most eager to use it on the second most-important position, and so on? If someone said, "Don't take a strong safety before the second round," it would make sense, because strong safety is typically not all that important. But don't take a quarterback before round 2? I just don't get that. If you wanted to argue that you should never reach for need at any position, and that you should only take a QB in the first if you have a first round grade on him, I'd agree with that. Wholeheartedly. But if a team needs a QB, and if it has an appropriately high grade on a QB when its first round pick comes up, the idea of preferring not to take a QB with that pick is, for me, unfathomable. Great post!!! Atleast someone else on here isn't so narrow minded! Edited February 6, 2011 by Bill4Life
Hplarrm Posted February 6, 2011 Posted February 6, 2011 I don't completely disagree with you, but with the exception of the Brady & Manning in your list above (who are beyond simply being "franchise QBs" and enter the realm of legendary players) Brady yes for legendary, but Peytom while a great QB falls short of legendary status due to only one SB win on his roster of accomplishments. A legend perhaps as the best QB to only win one, buy right now mostly his memory of him will be a shake of the head to wonder why he did not win more.
JAMIEBUF12 Posted February 6, 2011 Posted February 6, 2011 when you are dead last in stopping the run you in no way shape or form draft a quarterback with the 3rd pick in the draft unless it is peyton manning or jim kelly or john elway..........
Recommended Posts