Bucky Brooks Scout's Notebook: Stop Overdrafting Quarterbacks!

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, DJB said:

Problem is you dont win without them. Its a QB driven league and always will be. If you need a QB you have to do whatever I to get one.

 

Teams that already have franchise QB have a much easier time sticking to their draft board and not reaching.

 

 

Yeah. 

 

He talks about learning this (never overdraft anyone) in the Seattle and Green Bay scouting staffs.

 

Green Bay already had their QB. Once you have your QB, yeah, don't overdraft. Seattle got lucky that nobody overdrafted Russell Wilson. If someone had been smart enough to do that, Seattle would never have won a SB.

[Tyrod's friend]

If you draft good players, and keep them, and they aren't necessarily QBs, you can do fine. 

But the Bills
* notably are poor in the draft and
* when they have a good player, they let them go.

When I think about it, since the early 90s I can't think of any franchise players we've ever drafted and truly kept outside of Kyle Williams. 

The Baltimore Ravens really haven't had a really good QB since the franchise was founded. (Don't you EVEN talk about Flacco as really good). Ozzie Newsome had an incredible record of finding talent; they kept the best and augmented as necessary, and they are competitive each and every year. They've never, ever "reached" for a QB.

It looks to me like Andy freaking Dalton averaged about 10-11 wins in his first five years of starting in Cincinnati. Bengals didn't leap up to get him. 

The Vikings have averaged nearly 11 wins in the last three years without jumping to get a QB and in fact starting three different QBs. I'm sure there are other examples over time. 

There's a lot of paths to excellence. I think Bills fans are impacted because of Brady; but don't tell me "you can get stick to your board when you already have your franchise QB". Stick the board, retain the quality players, and eventually the board will provide you with a winning culture and team. 

1 hour ago, SinceThe70s said:

 

This Jets trade-up is like sand in my gears.

 

It's the Jets. Mark Sanchez was the last guy they did this with, and they've been the freaking Israelites, wandering around the desert without a QB for literally 50 years since Namath. 

I'd say the likelihood is pretty good they screwed up again.

Edited March 24, 2018 by Tyrod's friend

[Buffalo Barbarian]

When QBs become like RBs then we will stop overdrafting them.

 

 

[GunnerBill]

I only have the same 2 QBs in my top 10 too... Mayfield is 11th on my big board. But I'd take Mayfield way before pick 11. Quarterback is the only position you should overdraft. 

[H2o]

Dear, dear Bucky. Smh. A LB or a DB or a DE is not the one under center trying to lead your team down the field for the winning score with under 2 minutes remaining. Until you have your franchise QB the rest is just the rest. It's not overdrafting if that QB turns out to be the Neo of your Franchise. 

Edited March 24, 2018 by H2o

[GETTOTHE50]

Asides from the center, the QB handles the football more than anyone else.

 

therefore he has the most influence and impact in the game.

 

if you see a great one (like Aaron rodgers) or even a good one (like Kirk cousins) then you do whatever it takes to get him.

 

especially if you don’t have one. 

 

Final analysis: Bucky is a moron. 

[MrEpsYtown]

Taking the seventh or eight best player at 1-2 is really not an overdraft. It's very slight, but you are talking about a likely franchise quarterback. An overdraft is taking the 30th best player in the top 3. An overdraft is drafting the 75th best player at 12. That is a colossal reach and a huge mistake that sets your franchise back because you are passing on 60 some odd players that are better and can likely get that QB later. 

[smuvtalker]

Lol his article only makes me want a QB that much more...

[Nihilarian]

Looking back on the last thirty years of the draft, it turns out that 39% of QBs taken in the first round became “elite” QBs (4,000 season passing yards, 60% completion percentage, a certain “put-the-team-on-my-back”-itude) while 39% become “busts”; the remaining 22% become middle-of-the-pack players. In fact, the first pick is the best time to take a QB: nine out of the fifteen QBs selected first overall in the past thirty years have become elite while only two have turned into busts.

 

https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/drafting-an-nfl-qb/

 

Every NFL that doesn't have a franchise QB now wants their Carson Wentz. The problem is the draft is not an exact science and it's a gamble. The only guy I'd move up to #2 to gamble on is Sam Darnold.

 

If he is gone I'd have to hope that one of the top four drops out of the first six picks for the next gamble to move up to #7. If that doesn't happen it looks like Mason Rudolph is the man at 22. That is if the Steelers don't move up to draft him before Buffalo.

[plenzmd1]

Here is where i believe Brooks logic is flawed. As he says,  he was taught scouting and drafting philosophy by " Mike Holmgren, Ted Thompson, John Schneider and Scot McCloughan -- all of whom were mentored by Ron Wolf during their time with the Green Bay . You know what they all had in common..not having a rookie wage scale. So when you drafted a QB high back then, not only was your draft cooked, but so was your cap.

 

Teams that win now( outside NE) do so with exceptional value ( rookie contracts) at high-value positions like QB, CB, LT, and WR. That is why drafting Barkey high makes zero sense from a cap and team building perspective. His value over replacement is not as great as his value over his cap number. Barkley goes in the top 10, he will be paid like a top 5 RB in the league. Darnold, Rosen, Allen go in the top 10, they are paid like a bottom 6 QB in the league. And if they flame out, does not kill your cap number. He mentions Gabbert, Ponder, Locker in the article, every hear of any of these teams being handcuffed by the cap cause they paid the first round QB? Ever hear a Bills fan saying drafting EJ was a massive drain on our ability to sign guys?> Nope and that's why you need to take bigger swings and risks at QB, the reward those first 5 years if they hit is just too great to pass up.

 

Its a different world, and analytics will drive these decisions, and cap and cheap rookie contracts at value positions absolutely drive decsions

[boyst]

9 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Here is where i believe Brooks logic is flawed. As he says,  he was taught scouting and drafting philosophy by " Mike Holmgren, Ted Thompson, John Schneider and Scot McCloughan -- all of whom were mentored by Ron Wolf during their time with the Green Bay . You know what they all had in common..not having a rookie wage scale. So when you drafted a QB high back then, not only was your draft cooked, but so was your cap.

 

Teams that win now( outside NE) do so with exceptional value ( rookie contracts) at high-value positions like QB, CB, LT, and WR. That is why drafting Barkey high makes zero sense from a cap and team building perspective. His value over replacement is not as great as his value over his cap number. Barkley goes in the top 10, he will be paid like a top 5 RB in the league. Darnold, Rosen, Allen go in the top 10, they are paid like a bottom 6 QB in the league. And if they flame out, does not kill your cap number. He mentions Gabbert, Ponder, Locker in the article, every hear of any of these teams being handcuffed by the cap cause they paid the first round QB? Ever hear a Bills fan saying drafting EJ was a massive drain on our ability to sign guys?> Nope and that's why you need to take bigger swings and risks at QB, the reward those first 5 years if they hit is just too great to pass up.

 

Its a different world, and analytics will drive these decisions, and cap and cheap rookie contracts at value positions absolutely drive decsions

This is a very fair point that I didn't even consider.

 

The point i first considered is that teh GM'S regarded as the best and the ones who get the kodt attention are the ones whom succeed and the common factor is that they all had quality quarterbacks. And when you take that into consideration you don't have to think about how they build the team. Even teams like New England fail miserably when it comes to drafting and that's easy for them to do when they have Tom Brady.  When you have one of the best quarterbacks it's not very difficult to succeed when you're only hitting on 1/4th of your draft picks. 

[dollars 2 donuts]

16 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Wrong.

 

It's really true. 

 

Marshawn Lynch was an All Pro.........and 5X pro bowler not 1x.........and he's a likely HOF'er.

 

And Donte Whitner.......yes Lil' Donte.......was also a 2x time Pro Bowler.

 

Same for Willis McGahee........2x pro bowler.......10K yard RB.

 

All three were Bills first rounders.

 

Then there is Lee Evans who was basically good for around 900 yards receiving at 15 ypc clip in his first 6 seasons.

 

Sammy Watkins was also extraordinary in his first two seasons in Buffalo.

 

Lee Evans is the only one of those guys who saw a second contract in Buffalo...........some didn't even make it thru the first one.

 

NOT "abysmal" first round selections..........just the WRONG selections because the team did not have a franchise QB to put them around.

 

 

 

Badol, honestly solid points.

 

however, please forgive my knit picky comments:

 

Marshawn is great but unless he busts it out in the next two years at Oakland I don't think he is a HoF.  There are 11-12 retired guys in front of him with more rushing, some with less seasons that aren't in the hall.  Yes he had a great impact, but I believe the new standard is at least 12,000 yards rushing and at little more than 10, 000 now I don't think he gets it.  Also, not a real good receiver, averaging a little more than 20 or so grabs a season.

 

Also, willis isn't 10,000 yard back.  He comes close when you add in receiving yards, but still not there.

 

was honestly surprised though...the guy had 4,537 yards rushing in his first 4 years with Buffalo and Baltimore and he only needed 10 more yards in his 3rd full season with the bills to have made it 4 straight 1,000 yard seasons.

Edited March 24, 2018 by dollars 2 donuts

[mannc]

26 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Here is where i believe Brooks logic is flawed. As he says,  he was taught scouting and drafting philosophy by " Mike Holmgren, Ted Thompson, John Schneider and Scot McCloughan -- all of whom were mentored by Ron Wolf during their time with the Green Bay . You know what they all had in common..not having a rookie wage scale. So when you drafted a QB high back then, not only was your draft cooked, but so was your cap.

 

Teams that win now( outside NE) do so with exceptional value ( rookie contracts) at high-value positions like QB, CB, LT, and WR. That is why drafting Barkey high makes zero sense from a cap and team building perspective. His value over replacement is not as great as his value over his cap number. Barkley goes in the top 10, he will be paid like a top 5 RB in the league. Darnold, Rosen, Allen go in the top 10, they are paid like a bottom 6 QB in the league. And if they flame out, does not kill your cap number. He mentions Gabbert, Ponder, Locker in the article, every hear of any of these teams being handcuffed by the cap cause they paid the first round QB? Ever hear a Bills fan saying drafting EJ was a massive drain on our ability to sign guys?> Nope and that's why you need to take bigger swings and risks at QB, the reward those first 5 years if they hit is just too great to pass up.

 

Its a different world, and analytics will drive these decisions, and cap and cheap rookie contracts at value positions absolutely drive decsions

Great post. And a great argument for taking a chance on QB near the top of the draft.  But it does not necessarily support the wisdom of trading a huge number of draft picks in order to move into the top of the draft in order to take said QB.  That’s a different discussion.

Edited March 24, 2018 by mannc

[Thurman#1]

12 hours ago, Tyrod's friend said:

If you draft good players, and keep them, and they aren't necessarily QBs, you can do fine. 

But the Bills
* notably are poor in the draft and
* when they have a good player, they let them go.

When I think about it, since the early 90s I can't think of any franchise players we've ever drafted and truly kept outside of Kyle Williams. 

The Baltimore Ravens really haven't had a really good QB since the franchise was founded. (Don't you EVEN talk about Flacco as really good). Ozzie Newsome had an incredible record of finding talent; they kept the best and augmented as necessary, and they are competitive each and every year. They've never, ever "reached" for a QB.

It looks to me like Andy freaking Dalton averaged about 10-11 wins in his first five years of starting in Cincinnati. Bengals didn't leap up to get him. 

The Vikings have averaged nearly 11 wins in the last three years without jumping to get a QB and in fact starting three different QBs. I'm sure there are other examples over time. 

There's a lot of paths to excellence. I think Bills fans are impacted because of Brady; but don't tell me "you can get stick to your board when you already have your franchise QB". Stick the board, retain the quality players, and eventually the board will provide you with a winning culture and team. 

It's the Jets. Mark Sanchez was the last guy they did this with, and they've been the freaking Israelites, wandering around the desert without a QB for literally 50 years since Namath. 

I'd say the likelihood is pretty good they screwed up again.

 

 

The Vikings are indeed a good example but they're an example of why you need a QB.

 

How many Super Bowl titles there? They overdrafted Bridgewater, and it might've worked if not for the injury, so now in their desperation they're wildly overpaying Cousins. And it's a good move. You've got to have a QB.

 

How many SBs have the Bengals won?

 

There are a lot of paths to very good. Very few to Super Bowl championships. Generally speaking you need one of the top ten or so best QBs.

Edited March 24, 2018 by Thurman#1

[plenzmd1]

13 minutes ago, mannc said:

Great post. And a great argument for taking a chance on QB near the top of the draft.  But it does not necessarily support the wisdom of trading a huge number of draft picks in order to move into the top of the draft in order to take said QB.  That’s a different discussion.

 

agreed!

 

 

Edited March 24, 2018 by plenzmd1

[Cripple Creek]

11 hours ago, DJB said:

Problem is you dont win without them. Its a QB driven league and always will be. If you need a QB you have to do whatever I to get one.

 

Teams that already have franchise QB have a much easier time sticking to their draft board and not reaching.

Yeah, stupid article for this reason. Brooks understands why QBs are "over drafted," yet he has to prove to us that he knows better. If he were ever lucky enough to be a GM with a top pick and no QB in a similar draft to this (in terms of talent) we all know what he'd do.

[peterpan]

11 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

SCOUT'S NOTEBOOK
Top-five QBs? Not So Fast
The draft stock of 2018's top passers -- Josh Allen, Sam Darnold and Josh Rosen -- has seemingly never been higher. Bucky Brooks explains why we may be overvaluing QBs and gives his latest top-10 ranking.

 

Former NFL player and scout Bucky Brooks knows the ins and outs of this league, providing keen insight in his notebook. The topics of this edition include:

 

-- How the Jason Pierre-Paul trade impacts the Bucs' and Giants' draft plans.

 

-- Bill Belichick's magic hand in the offseason.

 

-- Has time run out for Dez Bryant?

 

But first, a warning about passing on future stars to draft a quarterback ...

* * * * *

Reviewing my notes from the fall, I believe there are only two quarterbacks worthy of top-10 grades, and they don't rank within my top five overall prospects. Here's my top 10 right now:

1) Saquon Barkley, RB, Penn State
2) Bradley Chubb, DE, N.C. State
3) Denzel Ward, CB, Ohio State
4) Tremaine Edmunds, LB, Virginia Tech
5) Quenton Nelson, OG, Notre Dame
6) Minkah Fitzpatrick, DB, Alabama
7) Josh Rosen, QB, UCLA
8) Sam Darnold, QB, USC
9) Roquan Smith, LB, Georgia
10) Derwin James, S, Florida State

These are pure rankings and have no position importance factor.  A freaking Guard in the top 5???

 

When the Pats traded Logan Mankins no one noticed.  How do you think their fair without Brady???

11 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Get your QB..........then you can stick to your draft board for the next 15-20 years.

 

Like it or not all other positions are basically disposable.

 

During the drought the Bills drafted plenty of All Pro and Pro Bowl non-QB's in round one and yet they usually had only 4-5 of their first rounders on their roster each year...........which was the average length of time of a first round contract during the drought.

 

When they finally made the playoffs they only had one first rounder on the active roster.    Less of those did not matter.  

 

People who think the Bills should horde draft picks and use them on non-QB's just don't understand the math...........and clearly neither does Bucky Brooks. 

 

 

EXACTLY! 

[Thurman#1]

2 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

Here is where i believe Brooks logic is flawed. As he says,  he was taught scouting and drafting philosophy by " Mike Holmgren, Ted Thompson, John Schneider and Scot McCloughan -- all of whom were mentored by Ron Wolf during their time with the Green Bay . You know what they all had in common..not having a rookie wage scale. So when you drafted a QB high back then, not only was your draft cooked, but so was your cap.

 

Teams that win now( outside NE) do so with exceptional value ( rookie contracts) at high-value positions like QB, CB, LT, and WR. That is why drafting Barkey high makes zero sense from a cap and team building perspective. His value over replacement is not as great as his value over his cap number. Barkley goes in the top 10, he will be paid like a top 5 RB in the league. Darnold, Rosen, Allen go in the top 10, they are paid like a bottom 6 QB in the league. And if they flame out, does not kill your cap number. He mentions Gabbert, Ponder, Locker in the article, every hear of any of these teams being handcuffed by the cap cause they paid the first round QB? Ever hear a Bills fan saying drafting EJ was a massive drain on our ability to sign guys?> Nope and that's why you need to take bigger swings and risks at QB, the reward those first 5 years if they hit is just too great to pass up.

 

Its a different world, and analytics will drive these decisions, and cap and cheap rookie contracts at value positions absolutely drive decsions

 

 

 

While I think you make some good points here about how contracts have changed, I think you miss on the most important issue. You seem to be saying that to win the SB you've got to have a QB who's "exceptional value" because of the new rookie wage scale.

 

OK, history doesn't back that up. The new wage scale started in 2011. Since then, how many QBs who were exceptional value were on the SB-winning teams.

 

2011 Giants - Eli was certainly not on his rookie contract

 

2012 Ravens - You can argue this one either way, it was Flacco's rookie contract but his fifth year. He was making pretty good money that year, though not what he would make after winning the SB and getting that new contract

 

2013 Seahawks - Wilson was on his rookie salary, absolutely exceptional value

 

2014 Patriots - Brady costs less than most terrific QBs but his salary isn't anywhere near rookie contract value

 

2015 Broncos - Manning was not cheap

 

2016 Pats - Brady again

 

2017 Eagles - Wentz was a terrific value

 

That's two teams since the collective bargaining agreement that have won with a QB an exceptional value, though you can make an argument for Flacco too. This isn't the slam dunk you seem to be presenting it as.

 

Yes, overall it matters. No it is certainly not crucial to have a QB on his rookie contract if you want to win the SB, even in these days. But it is crucial to have a QB playing at a very high level. Teams without that win SBs rarely, roughly 10% of all SBs.

 

Edited March 24, 2018 by Thurman#1

[plenzmd1]

33 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

While I think you make some good points here about how contracts have changed, I think you miss on the most important issue. You seem to be saying that to win the SB you've got to have a QB who's "exceptional value" because of the new rookie wage scale.

 

OK, history doesn't back that up. The new wage scale started in 2011. Since then, how many QBs who were exceptional value were on the SB-winning teams.

 

2011 Giants - Eli was certainly not on his rookie contract

 

2012 Ravens - You can argue this one either way, it was Flacco's rookie contract but his fifth year. He was making pretty good money that year, though not what he would make after winning the SB and getting that new contract

 

2013 Seahawks - Wilson was on his rookie salary, absolutely exceptional value

 

2014 Patriots - Brady costs less than most terrific QBs but his salary isn't anywhere near rookie contract value

 

2015 Broncos - Manning was not cheap

 

2016 Pats - Brady again

 

2017 Eagles - Wentz was a terrific value

 

That's two teams since the collective bargaining agreement that have won with a QB an exceptional value, though you can make an argument for Flacco too. This isn't the slam dunk you seem to be presenting it as.

 

Yes, overall it matters. No it is certainly not crucial to have a QB on his rookie contract if you want to win the SB, even in these days. But it is crucial to have a QB playing at a very high level. Teams without that win SBs rarely, roughly 10% of all SBs.

 

Agree it is not essential, but it it tilts the playing field in your favor. 

 

Brady is an exception , as his $15m per season puts him behind every single stinking staring QB on their 2nd contract( I think, but maybe wrong). So New England gets value way above replacement, and gets value way above cap number.  Which you just cannot expect a team friendly deal from every other QB. 

 

Eli was certainly first year under new rules, and I think as the rules come into affect, the thought process on how to build a team has as well. All of McBeanes moves point to this. 

 

Tre White over Gilmore

Dawkins over Cordy

zae/ rookie this year over Sammy

rookie QB( fingers crossed) / cheap bridge guy in McCarron

 

$46 million dead cap this year,  all things point to him building the team this way. 

 

 

[Mat68]

The draft is about value.  A solid starting Qb is more valuable to a team than another position by a wide margin.  If you redo the the 2016 draft Zeke doesnt go 1, 2,, or 3.  The draft would go Wentz, Geoff, and Preskott.  Brooks is wrong and is just trying to give the draftknicks a break because it is so hard to determine what QB will improve in the NFL and which ones cant.  Its easy to watch Barkley run and see barring an injury he will be special.  Watching Bradley Chubb dominating the LOS and wrecking havoc in the backfield that he will be good on the edge in the NFL.  Determining out of Allen, Rosen, DArnold, Mayfield, and Jackson who will have the best career?  Goodluck with that.  But whatever team gets the best one will have the most success that is why they go high.