FireChan Posted January 16, 2017 Posted January 16, 2017 How many great QBs are in this draft? How many great QBs are great regardless of development staff? How many great QBs are great because of development staff? Probably at least 1. All of them. Zero.
The Frankish Reich Posted January 16, 2017 Posted January 16, 2017 (edited) For teams like the Broncos and Bills, I can't see anything to lose by acquiring Romo. Broncos: still at peak defense, but that will start declining soon. Siemien is an adequate placeholder, and Lynch is (at least for now) the future, but pretty clearly isn't ready yet. That's why the Romo to Broncos rumors won't go away; it just makes too much sense. Bills: right now at peak (non-QB that is) offense. Watkins has one more year on his contract, Clay/Glenn/McCoy/Incognito have big money committed to them and aren't getting any younger. If there's equally valuable replacements for them in-house, they've done a damn good job of hiding them. If they don't want to commit the big money/years to Tyrod, there's no in-house alternative and pretty meager pickings among the other likely available QBs. The window of opportunity is closing (again, big money guys going into decline years, and if you ask me Dareus is already there), but it ain't shut yet. If Romo fails, so what? It would be full rebuild time anyway, and you might as well see what Cardale's got. Having said that, I still want Foles (not Romo) for next year ... Edited January 16, 2017 by The Frankish Reich
Dr. Who Posted January 16, 2017 Posted January 16, 2017 That's it. Stop tying now because of the possibility of failure. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? It wasn't over when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, either .
nucci Posted January 16, 2017 Posted January 16, 2017 It wasn't over when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, either .
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted January 16, 2017 Posted January 16, 2017 Once every twenty or thirty years, you get a Superbowl winner carried pretty much by the defense alone. A top-tier qb makes you relevant for a decade or more. Like it or not, you have to play the lotto on the position if you don't have one. And then when you do, you still keep drafting. My own proclivities, btw, would be to build the lines on both sides of the ball. Contemporary NFL skews towards the qb, however, so I think you need to make it priority 1 and 1A. Good post. I also get a kick out of those who worry about redundancy at the QB position.
Dorkington Posted January 16, 2017 Posted January 16, 2017 Potentially great? Nobody knows. Is your approach to ignore the position because there are no certainties? I will guarantee you this one thing, if you don't try to find one you won't. That's not at all what I said. My view has long been that we keep Tyrod (or if another vet option is out there, I'm open to the idea), and then draft a QB at a reasonable spot (likely not in the first round), let the new guy and Cardale compete for backup/development, and go from there. I think it's silly to ditch Tyrod and reach for whomever in the first round because 'that's the way'.
Dr. Who Posted January 16, 2017 Posted January 16, 2017 Ah, I'm not so good with pop culture references.
Dorkington Posted January 16, 2017 Posted January 16, 2017 Probably at least 1. All of them. Zero. Actually surprised at that answer.
Alphadawg7 Posted January 16, 2017 Posted January 16, 2017 Four teams left led by Brady, Rodgers, Rothlisberger, and Ryan. I think that's 7 Super Bowl rings between them. I forget how many Marcia has. Ryan has had a great year while Rodgers has been white hot the last 2 months. Brady took a month off and looks his usual self. R'berger just keeps winning. Then you have the Raiders a 12 win team, lose Carr and McGloin, who lose to the Texans with rookie QB Cook. Can't help but think Raiders win that one if Carr was able to play. Sure hope the Bills have a viable plan to acquire and develop a good qb. Well considering last years champion, the Broncos, won the SB with literally the worst starting QB play in regular season last year then had their QB put up statistically the worst game in SB history for a winning team, I think its safe to say there are more than one way to win the SB.
Dr. Who Posted January 16, 2017 Posted January 16, 2017 Well considering last years champion, the Broncos, won the SB with literally the worst starting QB play in regular season last year then had their QB put up statistically the worst game in SB history for a winning team, I think its safe to say there are more than one way to win the SB. Is anyone disagreeing with that? The question is, statistically, which tactic offers the greater probability to win.
Alphadawg7 Posted January 16, 2017 Posted January 16, 2017 Probably at least 1. All of them. Zero. Actually don't agree with any of your 3 answers. 1. This QB class is weak, and I think the odds of even 1 "great" QB coming out of this class is very low. First of all, the odds of any GREAT QB coming out of any draft are never overwhelmingly high. The fact there are 32 teams and yet there is anywhere from 5 to 8 "great" QB's in the entire league right now (or really at any given time) depending on how loose of a definition one has for the word "great" in relation to the QB's proves that its not that easy to find a "great" QB. So to suggest at least 1 will come out of this marginal QB class at best is a bit of a stretch. Sure 1 or more always could, but its not nearly as likely as you always seem to suggest it will be. 2. This answers shows you must not have played at any level. There is not a single NFL great who was solely great based on their raw talent alone. You have no idea how much of the success on the field is because of the immense hard work put into players working on mechanics, breaking down film, practice methods, building a system around them, etc. I mean to say that all great QB's are great regardless of staff is ludicrous. 3. See above for why this answer is equally terrible and grossly inaccurate.
BuffaloHokie13 Posted January 16, 2017 Posted January 16, 2017 Is anyone disagreeing with that? The question is, statistically, which tactic offers the greater probability to win. If you factor in the odds of finding a top 5 QB in the first place, probably the other way.
Big Turk Posted January 16, 2017 Posted January 16, 2017 Four teams left led by Brady, Rodgers, Rothlisberger, and Ryan. I think that's 7 Super Bowl rings between them. I forget how many Marcia has. Ryan has had a great year while Rodgers has been white hot the last 2 months. Brady took a month off and looks his usual self. R'berger just keeps winning. Then you have the Raiders a 12 win team, lose Carr and McGloin, who lose to the Texans with rookie QB Cook. Can't help but think Raiders win that one if Carr was able to play. Sure hope the Bills have a viable plan to acquire and develop a good qb. Roethlesberger and Rodgers are lucky their kickers were unconscious yesterday or they go down to defeat... Kicker driven league, lol....
Alphadawg7 Posted January 16, 2017 Posted January 16, 2017 Is anyone disagreeing with that? The question is, statistically, which tactic offers the greater probability to win. Its not that simple though...the question is being asked as if you are starting a team from scratch, which is the best approach statistically. The reality is that its completely dependent on the team. In this case, everyone here cares about the Bills situation. So lets answer that: 1. We have a winning record with Tyrod Taylor at QB. 2. During that winning record in 2 seasons with Taylor, he has had 2 OC's. He also played hurt for several games. He had a defense that went from good to below average in a bad system. He was without the ONLY talented WR on this team in Sammy for most of 2016 and parts of 2015 plus had him play hurt in many of those games last year and this year. He was without his #2 WR many times too and also saw him play hurt. He lost key OL players for parts or most the season. His TE missed multiple games. His RB's missed games last year and this year. In other words, he often played without the best talent on the field. 3. The defense grossly under performed under Rex. The D also lost 2 key draft picks for part and all of the season, which were also its top 2 overall picks in the draft. The D lost its leader and main communicator in AW for a unit already struggling under Rex to understand the communication. 4. The Bills have been one of the higher scoring teams in the NFL since Taylor has been the QB. So despite all the injuries, coaching issues, massive decline in defense, etc we had a winning record with Taylor as our full time QB and we have put a lot of points on the board. So what is the easier path? Find a "great" QB which is very very hard to do, or look at the BIGGEST issue of this team which is clearly the defensive side of the ball and fix that. 1. This D was quite a bit better before the system was changed, and the bulk of our best players from that last good D are still here. 2. We get a healthy Shaq all year now, and Rags back to add more talent to the D. 3. Our new staff runs a D much more suited for our personnel and its reasonable to expect an improvement from the D this year on just that factor alone. Conclusion: We are a lot closer to fixing the defensive issues than we (or anyone) is to finding the next GREAT QB. And with our current QB, we score enough with him under center to win a lot of games if our defense wasn't giving up so many points and breaking with the game on the line. And even if we did draft the next great QB, odds are it would take a few seasons for him to develop enough to be great enough to carry a team, where as we can compete next year with Taylor and an improved D.
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted January 16, 2017 Posted January 16, 2017 If you factor in the odds of finding a top 5 QB in the first place, probably the other way. Top 5 is an interesting way of couching it. I could argue Brady and Rodgers as top 5 QBs with ease. Ryan and Big Ben, would not be consensus top 5 QBs... some would put them in there, some would not. They certainly do not perform at that level every season...
BigBuff423 Posted January 16, 2017 Posted January 16, 2017 It is tiresome that so many on both sides resort so easily to hyperbole. I don't think Taylor is very good. He doesn't see the field, makes slow reads, plays almost too safe. That doesn't mean I hate Taylor. If he is the qb, I will hope he does well and proves my assessment inaccurate. I like Watson and Mahomes in this draft and I would like Whaley and Co. to consider them. I do not claim special wisdom when analyzing qbs. This is just my opinion. I am aware others dissent strongly. I do know if you wait for a near can't miss prospect, you are rarely, if ever, going to be drafting a qb. That seems a very bad long-term strategy to me. +10000, this was spot on....well done.
PatsFanNH Posted January 16, 2017 Posted January 16, 2017 (edited) Top 5 is an interesting way of couching it. I could argue Brady and Rodgers as top 5 QBs with ease. Ryan and Big Ben, would not be consensus top 5 QBs... some would put them in there, some would not. They certainly do not perform at that level every season... THIS YEAR insay all 4 are easily in top 5. Over their careers I say Big Ben has a solid argument to be in there and Matty Ice is probably 7-8... still damn impressive list for the final 4. Edited January 16, 2017 by PatsFanNH
Maury Ballstein Posted January 16, 2017 Posted January 16, 2017 Draft or die. Tyrod's inconsistency will always plague him.
aristocrat Posted January 16, 2017 Posted January 16, 2017 Is anyone disagreeing with that? The question is, statistically, which tactic offers the greater probability to win. i think a good part of it is luck that comes into play. but having a good team in place sort of cultivates the eventual qb to come along. brady comes in...number 1 defense in the league takes the pressure of him. he plays against that defense in practice and they all get better and win titles. wilson top defense when he came in. rodgers sat and developed then won a title with a top 5 defense. roethlisberger with the top defense in his first title and maybe second one.
FireChan Posted January 16, 2017 Posted January 16, 2017 Actually surprised at that answer. Why? Do you think Losman could've been Aaron Rodgers?
Recommended Posts