Are teams trading too many assets to get a QB?

[Thurman#1]

12 hours ago, TheFunPolice said:

... and Tampa Bay has been a really stacked team for a while. Their GM has done an amazing job of drafting and signing free agents for several years, so as much as I'm not a Brady fan it was nice to see that get rewarded.

 

But Tampa is the perfect example... loaded roster that kept going 8-8 (ish) until a real QB showed up. 

 

 

Agree with most of this, but I'd argue it was mostly their good drafting rather than their good FAs that got them ready for when Brady came.

 

Look at these guys that they drafted who started this year:  Ronald Jones, Mike Evans, Chris Godwin, Scott Miller, Donovan Smith, Ali Marpet, Alex Cappa, Tristan Wirfs, William Gholston, Devin White, Lavonte David, Carlton Davis, Sean Murphy-Bunting, Antoine Winfield Jr, and Jordan Whitehead. That's good drafting and development.

[Warcodered]

3 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

Wait, you're saying that giving them to you to develop is ... not a good idea?

 

Is this an autocorrect problem?

Somehow ended up with time=to me.

 

What I was saying was that if you take a QB that high it should cost you around 2-3 years before you're looking at taking a QB again no matter what you traded to get to them.

[Thurman#1]

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

Somehow ended up with time=to me.

 

What I was saying was that if you take a QB that high it should cost you around 2-3 years before you're looking at taking a QB again no matter what you traded to get to them.

 

 

Ah, gotcha. Makes sense.

[loveorhatembillsfan4life]

We kicked the bucket around with how many different Quarterbacks from Jim to Josh? 
 

All we showed for it at best was maybe some 7-10 Win Seasons. We had one of the longest playoff drought in the Nfl and yet we were decent enough to never really have a shot at a Franchise Qb.  And when we did maybe for a guy like Wilson we passed.

 

I would probably give up a few years of numbers ones over that time if it meant finding the right guy. 
 

I think if you have a guy in site you go get him. Waiting to think he may fall to you almost never works out.

 

It only took 20 years for me to wait for Josh to come along  and  football is as exciting as ever with this team. We have a legitimate shot to hoist a Super Bowl over the next few seasons.

 

Now that being said it doesn’t always work out for some  but if you don’t take the shot you never know. 

 

 

[CincyBillsFan]

17 hours ago, glazeduck said:

No, from the perspective of a team that doesn't have a franchise QB, there's almost no price that's too much. As we've seen over the last decade, or so, championship windows, with rare exceptions, are really mainly confined to a talented QB's rookie contract. If you don't have the QB, you don't really have a chance, and when you factor in scarcity, any quality swing at getting one feels like it has to be worth it.

 

 

Great post but I would add that it's not just narrow championship windows that require a franchise QB'  You need one to create a dynasty.  IMO Rogers with GB is a perfect example of this. The Packers would be going on a decade plus of mediocrity without Rogers.  Sure they only have one SB win but they're in the conversation every year and that's because of Rogers.

 

You could throw in Pittsburgh, NE and NO into that category to.  Especially with NE as we've now run the experiment of who was most responsible for their run - Brady or Belichick.  I think we now know the answer.

 

Hell, this isn't anything new.  Back in the day the great dynasty's all needed great QB's.  Back then the players didn't have much mobility so you had to develop that guy.  But if you didn't you sucked most years.

 

 

 

[bigK14094]

I thought the Bills were lucky to get Allen at #7 overall, and that certainly now appears to be the case.  They paid a real substantial price, and had done their homework on Josh....assessing his character as being as important as his physical gifts.  And, they had the patience to let him grow into the job...which he appears to have done.   I would like to see him get paid and get about setting some career records here in Bills town.

[Albany,n.y.]

2 hours ago, loveorhatembillsfan4life said:

We kicked the bucket around with how many different Quarterbacks from Jim to Josh? 
 

All we showed for it at best was maybe some 7-10 Win Seasons. We had one of the longest playoff drought in the Nfl and yet we were decent enough to never really have a shot at a Franchise Qb.  And when we did maybe for a guy like Wilson we passed.

 

I would probably give up a few years of numbers ones over that time if it meant finding the right guy. 
 

I think if you have a guy in site you go get him. Waiting to think he may fall to you almost never works out.

 

It only took 20 years for me to wait for Josh to come along  and  football is as exciting as ever with this team. We have a legitimate shot to hoist a Super Bowl over the next few seasons.

 

Now that being said it doesn’t always work out for some  but if you don’t take the shot you never know. 

 

 

When the Bills traded up to #12 in 2018 and within a week the Jets traded up from 6 to 3, I was convinced that the Jets had screwed over the Bills & would get the better QB in 2018.  Fortunately for the Bills & unfortunately for the Jets the Jets picked the wrong guy & the Bills picked the right guy. 

 

While there's some luck involved, the teams with the better scouts & management will always come out ahead of the mismanaged teams in the long run.  We were mismanaged for so many years that by the time Beane, McDermott and the new scouting staff arrived any QB pick we made was questioned by the fans.  When I read the stories of how diligent the Bills were in scouting the QB class of 2018 from watching tape of every one of Josh's plays in college to watching him on the sidelines to seeing how he interacted with the Bills office staff, it's like they wrote the book on how to scout and draft a franchise QB.  

 

I get on the people I call the "stat boys" at times, and in 2018 the stat boys wanted nothing to do with Josh Allen.  It doesn't matter how the game has changed over the years, film study will always be more important than looking blindly at QB stats and so does the due diligence of interviewing a player & the coaches who coach him.  When the Raiders chose JaMarcus Russell with the #1 pick they didn't do enough due diligence.  At one point Matt Millen called Al Davis specifically to warn him how much of a slug Russell was after Millen interviewed Russell & Russell was horrible during the meeting.  Millen was honestly trying to warn Davis but old Al wouldn't listen.  It was pretty close to the same thing the year SD drafted Ryan Leaf after he came to the combine out of shape & blew off an interview with the Colts.  Then after he was drafted Leaf told the Chargers he was going to party in Las Vegas as long as he wanted before coming to SD for an introductory presser.  I heard the Leaf story on the radio one day years ago when they were interviewing an ex-Charger front office man & he was asked when was the 1st time you knew you were in trouble by drafting Ryan Leaf.  They should have known about his flawed character before the draft, not right after they drafted him.  

[PrimeTime101]

I dont think your taking in count the players we gave up to get those picks.

[BuffaloBillsGospel]

San Fran is a QB and healthy team away from a SB, Giving up the firsts only hurt if the QB doesn't pan out, if they're a playoff/SB contender yearly do you think they care much about those picks other than cheaper replacements for the future. If you have a great scouting department then you should also be able to hit on players in the later rounds like the Matt Milano's of the world imo.

[djp14150]

On 3/29/2021 at 12:51 PM, DefenseWins said:

The Bills got Josh Allen for a whole lot less. They moved up from #12 to #7 for picks #12, #53, #56 and got pick #255 back in the trade with Tampa. Is three #1 future picks too much to give up for an unproven QB? Sure, I think Allen, as he has turned out, might be worth that many top picks but you could also end up with a Sam Darnold.

Any thoughts?

 

 

buffalo traded 2 2nds that yr+...the two seconds=1st, I think they included additional picks 

 

the dolphins traded a 1st+3rd in 2922...unknown where they are.

[hondo in seattle]

To me what's interesting is watching teams trade up in the draft to nab a crappy signal caller.

 

The hit rate on drafted QBs - even those drafted in the first round - isn't great.  Talent evaluation remains an imperfect science.  Moving up in the first round of the draft means you're increasing your percentage of getting a 'franchise' QB from 20% to 40%, or something like that.   

 

That extra 20% can be very expensive. 

 

But when you end up with a Josh Allen, it's draft capital well spent.  

 

 

[ndirish1978]

The draft is a crapshoot. Trading 3 first rounders and missing on a QB pretty much dooms the team for 4 years and gets the FO fired. That said, if you don't have a QB you likely just wind up somewhere in the middle, just making or missing the playoffs and not advancing beyond the wild card - that's about as likely to get a FO fired.

[Southern_Bills]

On 3/29/2021 at 11:51 AM, DefenseWins said:

The Bills got Josh Allen for a whole lot less. They moved up from #12 to #7 for picks #12, #53, #56 and got pick #255 back in the trade with Tampa. Is three #1 future picks too much to give up for an unproven QB? Sure, I think Allen, as he has turned out, might be worth that many top picks but you could also end up with a Sam Darnold.

Any thoughts?

 

 

Also gave up a player to get to 12, but all that aside, I would like to say you are correct but you can't win without one in this league now.

 

You can have a near perfect team without a QB and never win the big one, or have a average to above average team with a QB and win it.

 

So what's too much.

[Albany,n.y.]

1 hour ago, djp14150 said:

 

buffalo traded 2 2nds that yr+...the two seconds=1st, I think they included additional picks 

 

the dolphins traded a 1st+3rd in 2922...unknown where they are.

Who knows if there will still be an NFL in 2922

[corta765]

I really like this question. I think for the first time ever the young QB potential may have swung a bit too far to the other side. Some of the bigger QBs moved (Stafford, Wentz, Goff) were done because teams felt the contracts were too high. If you hit on a young QB teams see the 3-5 years you get with a cheap contract and cap room to improve the roster quickly. The flip side though is Wentz & Goff were teams went too big too quick. People laugh at Jerry Jones but truthfully I think what he did with Dak was more logical compared to Philly overpaying Wentz which basically led to their roster being deconstructed because of his cap.

 

I believe it was Bill Barnwell had a thing or 538 that the odds of hitting on a QB in the 1st round where its a ten year run with sustained success (division crown, 10 + wins etc..) is 46%. To have success with a young QB you need to surround them with a system and talent that fits which won't happen for all. Not enough of these teams will have plans or systems that work for what it takes with a young QB. Getting a veteran isn't as sexy but rather then paying a premium for a QB it can give you time to identify the right guy for your system and get the talent needed.

[Nostradumbass]

The market still doesn't understand the value of a franchise QB IMO. If it did a team like the Dolphins with an undetermined quality at the position would not send away the 3rd pick in a QB talented draft for picks. 

 

 GM's love the idea of lots of picks and roster building because it glorifies the value they actually add to a franchise. 

[Albany,n.y.]

22 minutes ago, Nostradumbass said:

The market still doesn't understand the value of a franchise QB IMO. If it did a team like the Dolphins with an undetermined quality at the position would not send away the 3rd pick in a QB talented draft for picks. 

 

 GM's love the idea of lots of picks and roster building because it glorifies the value they actually add to a franchise. 

They had no choice since they drafted Tua in the top 5 a year ago & don't consider him a bust.  They couldn't draft another QB, so it was best to trade out of the pick. 

 

When Arizona drafted back to back #1 QBs in 2018 & 2019 it was because they could see that Rosen was a bust & got something for him before the whole league knew what they knew.  If they thought they had something in Rosen, they would have traded out of the top spot.  It still amazes me that Daniel Jones was picked 6th in the entire draft.  I thought the Giants would take Jones, but I thought it would be at pick 17.  

 

Obviously Miami thinks that Tua is the answer, or at least hopes he is.  Now if Houston had been bad enough to get Miami the top pick, I have no doubt they would be selecting Lawrence & trading Tua, but pick 3 only gets you the 3rd best QB prospect in this year's draft. 

[Big Turk]

What would you have traded to get Josh Allen?

[TBBills]

On 3/29/2021 at 12:51 PM, DefenseWins said:

The Bills got Josh Allen for a whole lot less. They moved up from #12 to #7 for picks #12, #53, #56 and got pick #255 back in the trade with Tampa. Is three #1 future picks too much to give up for an unproven QB? Sure, I think Allen, as he has turned out, might be worth that many top picks but you could also end up with a Sam Darnold.

Any thoughts?

 

You won't know until the dust settles and we see if the QB is good or not.

[SoTier]

On 3/29/2021 at 2:40 PM, mannc said:

I think the OP's point is that, yes an actual franchise QB is worth giving up a ton of picks for, but identifying said franchise QB coming out of college is not so easy, so it's not necessarily a good idea to trade, say, three number ones for the right to draft a college QB, because those making the pick are wrong far more often than they are right.  I can't think of a single team that's given up multiple first round picks to move up in the draft and then hit on a franchise QB with that pick.  The Texans, Chiefs and Bills all gave up far less to get their guys.  But maybe I'm forgetting someone.

 

Exactly this.   The track record of NFL GMs/HCs hitting on franchise QBs through the draft has been pretty dismal.   During the 2000s, only about 50% of first round QBs have been "successful" enough to be decent NFL starters for a few years. Hitting on a true franchise QB -- a top tier QB for most of his career --  is much harder, so the odds are much longer.  Between 2000 and 2017, 11 of the 18 drafts failed to produce franchise QBs even though at least one QB was drafted in those rounds, and usually more.   Moreover, during that same period, some  other teams found long term franchise QBs outside of the first round (Brady, Brees, Wilson) which also counts against NFL teams' prowess in picking QBs. 

 

First round  QBs who developed into  top tier (ie, franchise) QBs for most of their careers since 2000 include: Carson Palmer (2003, #1), Eli Manning (2004,#1), Philip Rivers (2004, #4), Ben Roethlisberger (2004 ,#11), Aaron Rodgers (2005, #24), Matt Ryan (2008, #3), Matthew Stafford (2009, #1), Andrew Luck (2012, #1), Patrick Mahomes (2017, #10),  DeShaun Watson (2017, #12).   From the class of 2018, Josh Allen (#7)  looks the most likely to join the group of career top tier QBs, at least partly because the Bills have provided him with great support.  Baker Mayfield (#1) seems the next most likely.  Lamar Jackson may also become a long tier top QB but Baltimore's offense, at present, seems to work against his development.

 

There have been some other decent QBs drafted in the first round during these years like Michael Vick, Alex Smith, Jay Cutler, Joe Flacco, Cam Newton, Ryan Tannehill, Teddy Bridgewater, and Jared Goff but they haven't been long term top tier QBs.  Between 2000 and 2017, 11 of the 18 drafts failed to produce franchise QBs.